SANJEEVAPPA ANJANAPPA,J.C.NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6 (2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1084/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 January 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Sanjeevappa Anjanappa, No.133 II Cross, 16th Main, Pipeline Rod, W. C. Road, J. C. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 086. PAN : AAXPA 4643 G Vs. ACIT, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Shareesh, CA Revenue by : Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 31.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K (Vic3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT restored the issues to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The AO was directed to follow necessary instructions regarding cash deposits during demonetization.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed to have sought adjournments which were not granted. The ITAT noted the assessee's nonchalant attitude but decided to provide another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance should be set aside to provide another opportunity for representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri. Shareesh, CA
For Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 31.01.2024Pronounced: 31.01.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 18.10.2023, 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 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 AO.

3.

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

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 present his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the AO. The AO 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. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →