SVR Builders , Bangalaore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1246/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0022 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYANA MURTHY
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1246/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 SVR Builders, No.27, 1 st Floor, Mallige Complex, Subramanyapura Main Road, KSRTC Layout, Bengaluru - 560 061. PAN – ADBFS 9146 B Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Bengaluru. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narayana Murthy, ITP Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2024 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 30/04/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1064473805(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings before them even though various opportunities of being heard were extended to the assessee. ITA No.1246/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 . 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR contended that it is the 1 st year existence of the assessee. The partners of the firm do not have requisite awareness about the Income Tax matters and the use of information technology with respect to such income tax matters. Besides, whatever notices were received by the firm from the Income Tax Department, they were handed over to tax professional. Thus, the assessee was under the bona-fide belief that the matter has been duly complied with by such tax professional but on a later date, the assessee came to know that there was no-compliance by the tax consultant. However, the ld. AR appearing before us undertook the responsibility for the necessary compliances before the authorities below and, therefore, he prayed to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 4. On the contrary, the ld. DR did not raise any serious objections upon the responsibility taken over by the ld. AR for the assessee for necessary compliances for setting aside the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the assessee had been negligent in making the compliances before the revenue authorities. But what we find from the order of the authorities below is that the entire expenses claimed by the assessee has been treated as income besides the cash deposit of Rs. 49,75,000/- only. It is the trite law that the income has to be determined within the provisions of law and in scientific manner despite of non-cooperation from the side of the assessee. Be that as it may be, taking a note on the responsibility taken by the ld. Counsel for the assessee for making the necessary compliances, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the ITA No.1246/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 . assessee to represent its case before the AO. It is needless to mentioned that the assessee shall cooperate during the proceedings and shall not take any adjournment without just cause. With this observation, we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 16 th day of August, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 16 th August, 2024 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore