A S UDAYA SHANKAR ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 1822/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Alampalli Seetharam Udaya Shankar against the order of the CIT(A) dated 21.07.2024, concerning the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing (246 days), which the assessee attributed to the ill health of his tax professional. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, noting that the assessee had not received physical notices from the CIT(A), only electronic ones, which he claimed led to his unawareness of the proceedings. The ITAT decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32855 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGHVENDRA CHAKRAVARTHY
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI CHANDRA OJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1822/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Alampalli Seetharam Udaya Shankar, No.1, Vijayalakshmi Nilaya 8th A Main Road, Dattatreyanagar, Bangalore South, Bangalore Girinagar S.O. – 560 085. PAN : ALCPS 8326 A Vs. ITO, Ward – 7(2)(5), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Raghvendra Chakravarthy, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 29.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 21.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of one day in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the ill health of the ITP during the relevant period. We are of the view that no latches can be attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated ITA No.1822/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 filing of this appeal. Hence, we condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 3. At the very outset, we notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 246 days in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) has observed that assessee has not filed any written submission in response to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that none of the notices were served upon the assessee physically and assessee was not aware of the same. 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 CIT(A). 4. Learned DR supported the Order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the physical hearing notices sent by the CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee was not aware of the notices issued since the same were uploaded only on the e-filing portal. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that 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). The assessee is directed to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.1822/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 30.10.2024. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "