RAMAKRISHNAPPA SRINIVAS ,TUMAKURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, TUMKURU

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 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.