PARASURAM PETROLEUM ,HUBBALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), HUBBALLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 March 2024AY 2014-15Bench: 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 appeal was decided ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not comply with notices. The assessee's counsel stated that notices from NFAC were not received after the appeal migrated.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after being decided ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices.

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 “A”, BANGALORE

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

Hearing: 12.03.2024Pronounced: 12.03.2024

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 11.12.2023 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2014-2015.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the appeal of the assessee before the first appellate authority has been decided ex part. The reason for deciding the appeal by the CIT(A) ex parte was that several notices issued from the Office of the first appellate authority for filing written submission was not complied with by the assessee.

3.

The learned AR submitted that the assessee had represented for the first hearing notice issued from the Office of the first appellate authority. Later, the appeal had migrated

M/s.Parasuram Petroleum. to National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the hearing notices issued were never received by the assessee. In the interest of justice and equity, the learned AR submits that the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. 4. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the A.O. and the CIT(A).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →