Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4160 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-01-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
24-01-2024
Assessment Year
2017-2018
Appeal Filed On
10-12-2023
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1043/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2017-18 Mangalore Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 13-04-380/7, Mineral House, U.P. Mallya Road, Hampankatta, Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN: AABCM 3953G Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Mangaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Harsha J., Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 25.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee against the ex parte DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057852281(1) dated 09.11.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2017-18 confirming the order of the AO. 2. On going through the order of the CIT(Appeals), we note that the CIT(Appeals) issued various notices, but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The ld. AR submitted that the notices ITA No.1043/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3 issued by the CIT(Appeals) was not received by the assessee. The assessee was also suffering from severe low back pain with sciatica and advised bed rest from 31.08.2023 for 3 months (medical certificate filed on record). Hence the assessee could not respond to the notice of the CIT(Appeals) before passing the impugned order. The assessee appeared before the AO and submitted details as called for, but the AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and assessed income at Rs.8,80,21,234 whereas returned income was filed on 09.03.2018 at Rs.4,82,84,214. She requested for another chance before the CIT(Appeals) and undertook to produce all necessary evidence to substantiate the claim of the assessee. 3. The ld. DR objected to the request of the ld. AR and submitted that the CIT(Appeals) issued various notices but the assessee ignored the same. 4. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the CIT(Appeals) issued various notices, however the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. The assessee appeared and filed details before the AO, however the AO has not accepted the submissions of the assessee. Considering the request of the ld. AR, in the interest of justice, we restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh decision as per law after reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to intimate the correct email-id and communication address, mobile no., etc. to the department and produce ITA No.1043/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3 all the documents necessary to substantiate its claim and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 30 th day of January, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 30 th January, 2024. / Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.
