M/S. REDDY HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(4) , BENGALURU
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee failed to respond to several notices for written submissions. The assessee claimed this was due to financial difficulties and employee departures, leading to genuine hardship.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that non-response was not deliberate but due to bonafide reasons and hardship. Considering the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMEDR
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 10.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to several notices dated issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that assessee is
ITA No.302/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
in deep financial crisis and pressure to repay creditors from past several years and was running pillar to post in sorting out various issues. It was also submitted that the employees of the assessee company who were looking after the tax matters and accounts left the services of the assessee company. Thus, the assessee was unable to provide or properly respond to the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A). It was also submitted that not responding to the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to bonafide and reasonable cause and was due to genuine hardship of the assessee. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the CIT(A).
The learned DR was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that not responding to the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to bonafide and reasonable cause and was due to genuine hardship of the assessee. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.302/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 30.05.2024. /NS/*
Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
