GURUBASAPPA SHAHAPUR ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , BIJAPUR
Facts
The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee did not respond to notices regarding a cash deposit of Rs.11,18,300/- during demonetization. The assessee claimed to have lost his mobile phone, thus missing the notices.
Held
The tribunal condoned the 22-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's explanation for missing the notices and in the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after an ex-parte order was passed due to missed hearing notices.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
Per George George K, Vice President:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 08.06.2023, 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 22 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 22 days in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.
ITA No.172/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 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 notices issued on 02.03.2023, 27.03.2023 and 31.05.2023 for explaining the source of cash deposited into his bank account amounting to Rs.11,18,300/- during the demonetization period. The learned AR submitted that assessee is a farmer and is not aware of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as assessee had lost his mobile phone and he could not check 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 CIT(A).
The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to explain the source of cash amounting to Rs.11,18,300/- deposited into bank account during the demonetization period. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. Assessee has filed an affidavit stating that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as he had lost his mobile phone and could not check the emails. 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 CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.172/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
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. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 28.02.2024. /NS/*
Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
