GRADIENTE INFOTAINMENT LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 508/HYD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 February 2024AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee would not benefit from ex parte proceedings and that granting an opportunity would allow the case to be decided on merits. Therefore, the assessee was granted an opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's representative was sick during assessment proceedings, leading to an ex parte assessment order. The first appeal was also decided ex parte due to the Chartered Accountant's inexperience and failure to communicate properly.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case after ex parte orders were passed due to circumstances beyond their control.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AR
Hearing: 07/02/2024

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 20/09/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Gradiente Infotainment Limited, (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2020-21, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the representative of the assessee before the learned Assessing Officer, had fallen sick for some time and absented himself before the learned Assessing Officer, resulting in the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), and also that the Chartered Accountant, who conducted the first appellate proceedings, not having any experience of conducting the appeals before the learned CIT(A), failed to properly respond to notices and did not inform the assessee in time, and that is the reason why the first appeal was also decided ex parte. She submits that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the proceedings to be decided ex parte. In these circumstances, learned AR prayed that given an opportunity in the interest of justice, the assessee is prepared to appear before the learned Assessing Officer and to conduct the proceedings diligently.

3.

Per contra, learned DR submitted that the assessee failed to avail many opportunities granted by the learned CIT(A) as well as the learned Assessing Officer, and therefore, no further opportunity could be granted to the assessee and since there are no merits in this appeal, the same may be dismissed.

4.

On a careful consideration of the submissions made on either side and on a perusal of record, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee does not stand to gain by allowing the proceedings to be decided ex parte, and the highest that would happen by giving an opportunity to the assessee, is that a cause can be decided on merits. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee, so that the assessee can appear before the learned Assessing Officer and conduct the proceedings diligently.

5.

With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh view in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of February, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →