BUY N SAVE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(8), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 73/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHODHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was deprecable, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to present their case. The issues were restored to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to respond to several notices. The assessee requested an adjournment, but it was not granted. The tribunal noted the assessee's nonchalant attitude in not filing submissions on time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and whether one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHODHRY

For Appellant: Shri. Ravi Kiran, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing Counsel for Revnue
Hearing: 12.02.2024Pronounced: 12.02.2024

O R D E R Per Bench :

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against NFAC’s order dated 21.12.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds:

1.

The impugned Order u/s. 250 of the Act dated: 06-092023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,12,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case

3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,12,000/- made by the AO without considering the submissions filed on 22-12- 2023 in response to hearing notice dated 14-12-2023 since the portal was stated to have been closed on 21-12-2023 but the closure order was not uploaded to the portal as on 22-12-2023 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the cash deposited into the bank on 10-11-2016 and 13-11-2016 of Rs. 28,12,000/- out of which Rs.11,00,000/- was held as out of sales and the balance of Rs.17,12,000/- was not said to be out of normal business transaction 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.17,12,000/- without reference of hearing notice and also the Written Submissions furnished through email on 22-122023 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing

3.

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).

4.

The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).

5.

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.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →