K.V. NAGARAJ,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 892/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 July 2016AY 2005-064 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the circumstances of the assessees, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity for the assessees to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessees, husband and wife, failed to make effective compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) due to the assessee-husband's distress following search and arrest related to illegal mining. The assessees requested the matter be restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be restored to the AO for a fresh decision due to the assessees' inability to make proper compliance before the lower authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CA

O R D E R PER BENCH

All these appeals are filed by two different assessees being husband and wife Sri K.N.,Nagaraj and Smt K.N.Nandini. Appeals of the assessee Shri K.N.Nagaraj are for assessment years : 2005-06 to 2011-12 which are directed against the combined order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore dated 27-03-2015 and the remaining four appeals are filed by Smt. K.N.Nandini which are directed against a separate order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bangalore also dated 27-03-2015. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.

At the very outset, it was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that in case of Shri K.N.Nagaraj, none-appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and although, in the case of Shri K.N.Nandini, the assessee herself appeared before the ld. CIT(A), but no effective compliance could be made by her. It was also submitted that before the AO also, in both the cases, proper compliance could not be made because, Shri K.N.Nagaraj, was very much disturbed due to the search and allegation regarding illegal mining and was also put behind bars afterwards and therefore, in the interest of justice, the entire matter in both the cases may be restored to the file of the AO for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both these assessees.

3.

The ld. DR of the revenue submitted that various opportunities were provided to both the assessees by the AO as well as by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, no further opportunity should be provided.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on this aspect and before going into the merits of the additions made in these two cases in various years, we examine this aspect as to whether the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision or not. Considering the facts of the present case, we are inclined to restore the entire matter back to the file of the AO for a fresh decision in view of the principle of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) in both these cases in all years and restore the entire matter back to the to the file of respective AO in both these cases in all the years involved in various appeals before us.

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) in all these cases and restore the entire matter back to the file of the AO after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees. We do not want to make any comment on the merits of various additions at this stage.

5.

In view of our decision above, various grounds raised by the assessee in respect of various additions, do not called for any adjudication at this stage.

6.

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →