SHRI. RAJESH LAXMIKANTH VARNERKAR,MANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1004/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 January 2024AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee failed to respond to notices for written submissions. The assessee's representative explained this was due to business dislocation and the tax consultant's father's ill health, causing missed emails.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's reasons for non-appearance and non-submission of documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Nischal B, Addl CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 17.01.2024Pronounced: 17.01.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 19.10.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.

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 several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) for filing the written submissions. The learned AR submitted that due to dislocation of business activity, assessee could not contact his tax consultant who was looking after taxation matters. It was also submitted that notices from the Office of the CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of his tax consultant who did not observe the mail on account of his father’s ill health. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before the CIT(A).

3.

Learned DR supported the orders of the CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits since assessee has not responded to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). Due to dislocation of business activity, assessee could not contact his tax consultant who was looking after assessee’s taxation matters and also since that notices from the Office of the CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of his tax consultant who did not observe the mail on account of his father’s ill health, we are of the 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 CIT(A). 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 →