NIVAS NARAYAN PATIL ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4) , MANGALORE
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not submit documentary evidence or reply to notices. The assessee claims they did not receive the notices, possibly due to them being in the spam folder.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was decided ex-parte. Considering the possibility of notices being missed, and in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee, and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” 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 01.09.2023, 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 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.15,54,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.
ITA No.97/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3
The learned AR submitted that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of 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 file written submissions. Since there was no written submission filed on the part of the assessee, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of 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.
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: 14.02.2024. /NS/*
ITA No.97/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.
