RAMAKRISHNAPPA SRINIVAS ,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, TUMKURU
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee's counsel submitted that the ex-parte order was passed as the assessee was unaware of the newly introduced faceless scheme and missed email notices.
Held
While deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee, considering the introduction of a new faceless scheme.
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 23.11.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
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 respond to the several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that the appeal being a faceless scheme is newly introduced and assessee is not aware of it. Learned AR submitted that some
ITA No.106/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
of the notices sent through email which were not noticed by the assessee and hence assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A). 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 file written submissions. Since there was no written submission filed on the part of the assessee, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the written submissions on time. However, 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.
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/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 14.02.2024. /NS/*
ITA No.106/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3
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.
