RAMESHA KENGERI RAMAKRISHNAPPA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers

ITA 970/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 January 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order despite the assessee's request for adjournment. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the demand was not deposited before filing the appeal. The assessee requested an adjournment but it was denied. The assessee also claimed they were entitled to a refund and therefore not liable to pay tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent their case after the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering their adjournment request.

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. Siddesh Gaddi, CA

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Hearing: 31.01.2024Pronounced: 31.01.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 28.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.

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 had not deposited the demand before filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that assessee has to get refund and hence, assessee is not liable to pay tax. The learned AR also submitted that assessee sought for adjournment for the notice 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.

The learned DR 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 notice directing the assessee to file written submissions. In response to the notice issued from the Office of the CIT(A), assessee had sought for adjournment. Copy of the adjournment application is placed on record. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the AO. 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →