Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-receipt of hearing notices, which were allegedly in the spam folder. The assessee had previously provided details to the AO. The current appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in filing the appeal. While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal acknowledged the claim of non-receipt of notices and the AO's potentially unreasoned order. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity for the assessee to represent their case.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be decided ex-parte or if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 12.12.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
There is a delay of 9 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit stating therein the reasons for late filing of this appeal. We have perused the reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing of this appeal and we are of the view that there is reasonable cause and no latches can be attributed to the assessee for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay of 9 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
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 the three notices issued for filing the written submissions in support of his contentions. The learned AR submitted that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the AO.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued three notices on 18.01.2021, 23.10.2023 and 10.11.2023 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. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the written submissions on time. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails. It is noticed that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had produced details to the AO but the AO did not pass a reasoned order. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the AO. 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.