Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI JASON P BOAZ
to 1262/Bang/2014 M/s. L K Trust Page 2 of 4 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an AOP and a private trust, filed its returns of income for the relevant assessment years and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, various expenses were disallowed and brought to tax. On appeal, the CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the issues i.e. disallowance of prior period expenses and depreciation on Ooty building to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The revenue also preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the issues raised in the revenue’s appeal were also set aside to the file of the AO. The AO, while giving effect to the order of the ITAT u/s 143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had made the disallowance of prior period expenditure and depreciation claimed by the assessee on the Ooty Building against which assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has filed the appeal after the limitation period and further that the assessee had not appeared before him for hearing when the appeal was fixed for hearing on 19/06/2014. He, therefore, dismissed the assessee’s appeals for want of prosecution. The assessee is in second appeal before us.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed appeals within time and therefore appeals are not barred by limitation and further that the first notice of hearing was issued on 15/05/2014 on which date the assessee had to 1262/Bang/2014 M/s. L K Trust Page 3 of 4 sought an adjournment and it was adjourned to 19/06/2014. He submitted that on 19/06/2014, due to personal exigency, assessee’s counsel could not appear before the CIT(A) and on the very same date, the appeals of the assessee were dismissed for want of prosecution. The learned counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee may be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A). The learned Departmental Representative was also heard.
Upon consideration of the rival contentions, we find that the CIT(A) had issued the first notice for hearing on 15/05/2014 on which date the appeal was adjourned to 19/06/2014 at the request of the assessee. We find that it was only on 19/06/2014 that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-consideration in accordance with law in the interest of justice. Accordingly, all the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the appeals on their merits in accordance with law.