Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not respond to several notices. The assessee contended that they sought adjournment for the notices, but the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte. The tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and lack of timely written submissions.
Held
While deprecating the assessee's non-chalant attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to represent their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to follow necessary instructions regarding cash deposits during demonetization.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
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: CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHODHRY
O R D E R Per Bench :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against NFAC’s order dated 24.11.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. The additional grounds were not pressed and are accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
Facts of the case are that 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 assessee had sought for adjournment for the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not heed to the request of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. 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 supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).
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 present his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall follow the necessary instruction in case of cash deposits of specified bank notes during the demonetization period. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.