SRI. ENTERPRISES ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 54/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 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 condoned the 31-day delay in filing the appeal. It was held that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be provided with another opportunity to present its case before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not file written submissions in response to two notices. The assessee sought condonation of a 31-day delay in filing the present appeal, citing reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the AO, given the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) due to non-filing of submissions and the delay in filing the current appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Kumar H. S, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 11.03.2024Pronounced: 11.03.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 09.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

There is a delay of 31 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 31 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.

3.

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 two notices were issued to file the written submissions in support of its contentions. The learned AR submitted that assessee sought time to file the written submissions. However, the CIT(A) rejected the plea and decided the appeal ex-party. 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 AO.

4.

The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued two notices to the assessee file the written submissions in support of its contentions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. Learned AR submitted that assessee had sought time for filing the written submissions. 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 AO. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →