Shri. Krishna Shivaprasad, Mangalore V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mangalore

ITA 403/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Krishnan Sivaprasad, the appellant, contesting an order from the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Mangalore, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2017-18, where the appellant challenged various additions and denials of exemptions related to agricultural income, among other issues. The appellant argued that the orders were passed without jurisdiction, violated principles of natural justice, and were based on presumptions and surmises. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's request for a re-hearing due to his inability to comply with the NFAC's notice, leading to the current decision to remit the case back to the NFAC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129390 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

ITA No.403/Bang/2023 Krishnan Sivaprasad, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.403/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnan Sivaprasad D.No.3-5-502, Empress Kadri Temple New Road Kadri Mangalore 575 004 PAN NO : BFQPS5998B Vs. ITO Ward-2(4) Mangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 213.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds: 1. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Mangalor e (Learned Officer), as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Fac eless Appeal Centre (NFAC), D elhi (the CIT(A)) to the e xtent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case 2. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction; 3. The order pas s ed in v iolation of the pr inci ples of natur al justic e is bad in law and liable to be quas hed; ITA No.403/Bang/2023 Krishnan Sivaprasad, Mangalore Page 2 of 4 4. The 'Learn ed CITO A has err ed in law and on facts in not considering the subm issions of the Appellant; 5. T h e L e ar ne d C IT OA has er r ed in l aw a nd o n fa ct s i n dis mi ss ing t h e ap peal fo r non -appe ar an c e/s ubm is s io n, w itho ut adj udic at ing o n m e rit s consi d eri ng the do c um ent s a vail abl e on th e r e co rd s ; 6. T h e L e ar ne d O f f i c e r h as e r r e d in l a w a nd o n f a c t s in m ak i n g an a dd i t i on o f R s . 11, 0 0 , 00 0 /- a s s h o rt -t e r m c a pi t a l ga i ns ; 7. The Learned O fficer has er red in law an d on facts in den ying the ben efit of exe m pti on to agricultural inc om e to the exte nt of Rs. 84,66,000/ - by tre ating the sa me as incom e from oth er sour ces ; 8. T h e L ear ne d A O has er r ed in law a nd on f ac ts in not ap pr e cia ti ng the n at ur e of a cti vi ti es a nd cir c u ms tan c es unde r w hi ch t he As s e ss ee ha s un der ta k en his acti vi ti es ; 9. T h e L e a r n e d A O ha s e r r e d i n l aw a n d on f a c t s in i m po s i n g c on d it i o n s t ha t a r e not p r e v a l e nt u nd e r t he s t a t ut e. 10.The Or der that is based on presum ptions and s ur mis es is b ad in law and liable to b e quashed in its entir ety; 11.The order is unreasonably high-pitched and therefore liable to be quashed in its entirety; 12.The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act; 13.The Learned Officer has erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act; 14.The Le !Tied Officer has erred in law by levying interest under section 234A/B of the Act; (Total tax;(effect: Rs. 26,86,613/-) ITA No.403/Bang/2023 Krishnan Sivaprasad, Mangalore Page 3 of 4 2. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. submitted on ground No.3 that NFAC issued a notice to the assessee which is not complied by the assessee in view of the fact that assessee is from rural background and not conversant with the ITBA portal and failed to submit the necessary details before the NFAC and prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be granted and he prayed that all the issues may be remitted to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration. 3. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of NFAC. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, various notices were issued by the NFAC which were not complied by the assessee. It was explained by the ld. A.R. that it is due to their poor knowledge about ITBA portal. In our opinion, it is appropriate vacate the order of NFAC and remit the issue to the file of NFAC for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have already remitted the issue to the file of NFAC, we refrain from commenting anything on the merit of the issues raised before us. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 4 th July, 2023 Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 4 th July, 2023. VG/SPS ITA No.403/Bang/2023 Krishnan Sivaprasad, Mangalore Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.