PALLI VEETHIL BICHU ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 95/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to provide one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(A) with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee failed to submit documentary evidence in support of their claim against an addition of Rs. 35,71,654/- as unexplained money. The assessee claimed they only received two notices and sought an adjournment on the second, which was not granted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivasa Kamath, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 14.02.2024Pronounced: 14.02.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 01.12.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

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 for submitting documentary evidence in support of assessee’s claim that AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.35,71,654/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The learned AR submitted that assessee were issued only with two notices for furnishing details in support of his case (Hearing notices dated 26.02.2021 and 11.09.2023). The learned AR submitted that assessee had sought for adjournment of notice issued on 11.09.2023 (to furnish details on or before 26.09.2023). However, the same was not heed by CIT(A) and the impugned order was passed. 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).

3.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

4.

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.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →