What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from attending the hearings due to their medical treatment in the USA. The ex-parte decisions by the lower authorities were therefore set aside.

The assessees, a husband and wife, filed their returns of income. The husband, a senior citizen, accompanied his wife to the USA for her medical treatment and surgery, staying there until May 2010. Due to their absence, they were unable to attend hearings before the AO and CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause from attending hearings before the tax authorities due to medical treatment abroad, justifying a fresh assessment.

Kamalalakshmi Viswanathan, New… vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SHRI A.T. VARKEY

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate

O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

These appeals, at the instance of the assessees, are directed against the orders of the CIT (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi dated 11.11.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08.

At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that both the assessees are husband and wife. He submitted that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring an income of Rs.76,625/-.

He submitted that further, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.07.2008 was issued and thereafter, the assessment was completed ex-parte. He submitted that the assessee – Shri P.N.

Viswanathan is a senior citizen, aged 72 years and her spouse (the other assessee – Smt. Kamalakshmi Viswathan) was suffering from Hypertension Hyperlipidemia – Diabetes etc. and to be operated at New York-U.S.A and as such, the assessee (husband) had to accompany her spouse for New York on 13.06.2008. He submitted that Smt. Kamalakshmi Viswathan was admitted to St.Francis Hospital Roslyn- New York where cardiac catheterization was done on 28.07.2009 and was discharged on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the assessees stayed in U.S.A uptill May 2010 and came back to India on 10th May, 2010. He submitted that due to these circumstances, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to attend the case fixed for hearing on different dates. The ld. CIT (A) decided the appeals of the assessees ex-parte as the notices of hearing remained unserved. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matters be restored back to the file of the AO to decide afresh.

Ld. DR did not object if the matters are restored back to the file of the AO. assessees were at USA for treatment during that period and due to that reason, the assessments were completed ex-parte. We are of the opinion that the assessees were prevented by sufficient cause to attend the hearings. The ld. CIT (A) also decided the appeals of the assessees ex-parte, although he admitted in para 4 of the impugned order that the notices remained unserved. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore both the cases to the file of the AO to decide afresh.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this day of 13th January, 2016.

KAMALALAKSHMI VISWANATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments