Shri. Behra Gopal Krishna Rao , Visakhapatnam V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mangaluru

ITA 450/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri. Behra Gopal Krishna Rao, a retired employee of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed his appeal in limine. The original dispute arose from the assessment year 2016-17, where the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had denied the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a long-term capital gains tax of Rs. 44,97,253. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with notices for submission of documents, which the assessee failed to respond to, citing his unfamiliarity with computer operations as the reason for not noticing the online communications. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124908 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 54; 2; 143(3); 250; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.450/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Behra Gopal Krishna Rao, Manidweep, Villa OR – 76, Shriram Panorama Hills, Law College Road, Yendada, Visakhapatnam – 530 045. PAN : AFKPK 2436 B Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Mangaluru. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CA Revenue by :Smt. Supriya Rao O. N,Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing:26.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement:26.07.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the CIT(A)’s Order dated 21.04.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a retired employee of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Assessee had filed return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.10,32,970/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017. The assessment under ITA No.450/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3 section 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the said Assessment Order, AO had computed income from long term capital gains of Rs.44,97,253/- by denying the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits since there was no response to the notices issued from the Office of the FAA to file submissions / documents in support of assessee’s case. 4. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR, though initially gave an adjournment application, however, withdrew the same. The learned AR submitted that assessee is not well versed in operation of computer and did not take notice of the various notices issued online and therefore could not submit the details / documents in support of its case before the FAA. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits. 5. The learned DR duly supported the order of the AO/CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee was issued various notices from the Office of the FAA for the assessee to provide written submissions / documents in support of his case. However, since there was no compliance to these notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The learned AR submitted before us that the assessee is a retired employee and is not well versed in operation of computers and failed to open emails to which notices were sent by the FAA. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly, the matter is restored ITA No.450/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3 to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue in filing of his written submissions / documents in support of his case. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 26.07.2023. /NS/* Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.