SHRI GURUDATTA ELECTRICALS,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS, VIJAYAPURA
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) claimed the assessee made no submissions, but the assessee contended that submissions were filed online with supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) overlooked these submissions.
Held
The CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions and evidence filed during the appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 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 AHMED
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 29.02.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.
At the very outset we notice that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. The reason for passing ex-parte order is that according to the CIT(A), assessee has not made any submission in support of its claim. The learned AR, before the Tribunal, submitted that assessee had filed the relevant details and submissions before the CIT(A) and CIT(A), without taking notice of the same, had stated in the impugned
ITA No.400/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
order that neither the assessee nor his AR has made any submission to support its claim. Assessee has filed a Paper Book comprising of 59 pages enclosing therein copy of the submissions made before the CIT(A) along with supporting documents and also the acknowledgement for the online submissions uploaded in the portal.
The learned DR was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had issued hearing notices for submissions / explanations in support of its grounds of appeal. In response to the same, assessee had filed details of submissions / explanations through online portal. The first submission was made on 17.01.2024 and again on 21.02.2024. The CIT(A), without taking note of the same, had recorded at para 4 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) that assessee had not submitted any explanation in support of its case in spite of several opportunities being provided during the course of appellate proceedings. We find that the assessee has placed on record the submissions made online which was uploaded during the course of appellate proceedings. A copy of the acknowledgment of the same is also placed on record. Therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in passing ex-parte order and in not taking into consideration the explanation / documents filed during the course of the appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice and equity, we restore the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to pass fresh orders after taking into consideration the evidences / submissions filed on behalf of assessee, online on 17.01.2024 and 23.02.2024. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.400/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/- (WASEEM AHMED) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 29.04.2024. /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.
