GOVINDARAJU SANJEEVAIAH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 March 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri George George K (Vice President), Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of a hearing notice, which was allegedly sent to a wrong email address. The assessee contended that they were not provided with sufficient opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE

Before: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Hearing: 14.03.2024Pronounced: 14.03.2024

O R D E R

Per George George K, Vice-President :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 14.02.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed ex parte order. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing sufficient opportunity. It was submitted that the hearing notice dated 08.02.2024 is sent to the wrong e-mail and never received by the assessee. It was, therefore, submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A).

3.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the A.O. and the CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has decided the appeals ex parte for the reason that there was no response to the notices issued to the assessee from the office of CIT(A). It is stated by the learned AR that the hearing notice dated 08.02.2024 sent by the office of CIT(A) through e-mail was not received by the assessee. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek adjournments in the matter without any valid reasons. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →