Smt. Nasima Farooq Sundka Nadima Yusuf Siwani, Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bengaluru

ITA 1233/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4983 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SREENIVASA KARTHIK DEVARA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Nasima Farooq Sundka Nasima Yusuf Siwani, No. 315, 8 th Cross, Lakshmi Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027. PAN: AAIPG4271G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(2)(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Lakshmi .S, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sreenivasa Karthik Devara, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 14.05.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order since assessee did not get Page 2 of 6 ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 opportunity to represent its case. It is submitted that the first 3 notices issued to the assessee was during the covid period and thereafter four notices were issued during 2024 which the assessee could not receive due to the change of the auditor. The assessee has filed an affidavit to that effect explaining the circumstances which is scanned and reproduced as under: Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 2.1. He prayed that the assessee was under a bonafide belief that, the notices were attended by the erstwhile auditor. He thus prayed that there is no malafide intention attributable to the assessee in non-appearance. The Ld.AR thus prayed for the appeal to be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to be considered on merits. 2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR though vehemently opposed the submission was of the opinion that the issues should be decided on merits. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. Page 5 of 6 ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 3. From the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is noted that there does not arise any malafide intention on behalf of the assessee in not appearing before the Ld.CIT(A). In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the Ld.CIT(A). Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a detailed order on merits after considering the submissions of the assessee. 3.1. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass an order to decide the merits of the case by passing a detailed order. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14 th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 14 th August, 2024. /MS / Page 6 of 6 ITA No. 1233/Bang/2024 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore