EPS FASTENERS LLP ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), , BENGALURU
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-response to three notices. The assessee claimed that the notices were sent to their Chartered Accountant and not communicated to them. The tribunal considered the interest of justice and equity.
Held
The tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to represent their case. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed due to non-receipt of notices?
Sections Cited
250
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 31.01.2024, 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 three notices dated 30.12.2020, 14.12.2021 and 12.12.2023 issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The
ITA No.606/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
learned AR submitted that the notices were sent to the assessee’s Chartered Accountant which was not communicated to the assessee and hence assessee could not respond to the notices issued. 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 Standing Counsel was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued three 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 the notices were sent to the assessee’s Chartered Accountant which was not communicated to the assessee and hence assessee could not respond to the notices issued. 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.
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/*
ITA No.606/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
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.
