SHRI. KRISHNASWAMY BALARAMAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1028/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 January 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that they were not digitally savvy and failed to notice digitally issued notices. The Tribunal granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietary concern engaged in construction, filed its return for AY 2017-18. The assessee, an elderly individual not well-versed with online procedures, claimed to have not received notices issued digitally by the ACIT. This led to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 with significant additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order passed under section 144 is valid when the assessee claims to have not received the notices due to lack of digital literacy?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, Advocate, Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 16/10/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee is a proprietary concern carrying on the business of construction of residential apartments in the name and style of KRSNA P ROJECTS. Assessee is assessed to tax with ACIT, Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore. The return of income was filed on 31.10.2017 vide eAck No. 280886011311017 declaring an income of Rs. 88,18.580 apart from agricultural income of Rs.10,00,000. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Assessee is an aged person and is about 72 years old. He is not wellversed with the computer operation. It appears, the learned ACIT has issue the notices under sec. 143(2), under sec.142(1) and also show cause notice on various days. All these notices were stated to be sent through email. It is submitted that the assessee did not receive these notices and that when the auditors were checking the income tax database for ITR processing. they could notice the assessment order passed under sec.144 of the A ct resulting in additions as Disallowance under sec. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.44446, Disallowance at 10 percent of aggregate purchases of Rs.96,29,212/- aggregating to Rs.96,73,658/- 2.2 Assessee filed appeal against the order of the Ld.AO but has not represented his case during pendency of the appeal. Opportunity was allowed to the assessee but no response was received by the Ld.CIT(A). So the case was decided on merit only on consideration of the grounds of appeal.

3. Before us, ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is not well versed in Income Tax Portal and failed to notice about the notice issued by the department digitally. Hence, he prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be given before the Ld. CIT(A). We accede to the request of the Ld. A.Rs. and remit the issue in dispute to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2024.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →