Mehrotra Sangeetha, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 280/BANG/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Smt. Mehrotra Sangeetha against an ex parte order from the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had dismissed her appeal without adjudicating on the merits due to non-compliance with procedural notices. The assessee, represented by a tax consultant, had sought an adjournment online but did not appear on the scheduled dates. The Tribunal, acknowledging the procedural lapses but prioritizing justice and equity, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115258 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM ITA No.280/Bang/2023 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Mehrotra Sangeetha No.159, Vinayaka Mansion 8 th Cross, HMT Layout R.T.Nagar Bangalore – 560 032. PAN : AGGPM1024Q. v. The Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) NFAC Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Srikar, CA Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that the order passed by the CIT(A) is an ex parte order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The CIT(A) had stated in the impugned order that various notices were issued and served on the assessee, which were not complied with by the assessee. ITA No.280/Bang/2023 Smt.Mehrotra Sangeetha. 2 3. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had no proper legal assistance and was unaware of the income tax procedure. However, the assessee had engaged a tax consultant and filed adjournment application online seeking time to submit reply to the notices issued by the CIT(A). The learned AR prayed, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent the case. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appeared for the Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had issued notices on three occasions and on all the date of hearing, the assessee did not represent her case. We strongly deprecate the non- appearance on the part of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and equity, since the matter has been decided ex parte without deciding the issues on merits, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. The CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.280/Bang/2023 Smt.Mehrotra Sangeetha. 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 17 th day of May, 2023. Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Sd/- (George George K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 17 th May, 2023. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT Concerned, Bangalore. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore