Nagarajareddy Vishwanatha , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

ITA 511/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7244 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.511/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 Nagarajareddy Vishwanatha, 821, 2 nd D Cross, 1 st Block, HRBR Layout, Bengaluru-560 043. PAN – AAAAC 4156 C Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 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, New Delhi dated 19/01/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059944902(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has issued 3 notices intimating the date of hearing but there was no compliance from the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal and thus, upheld the order of the AO. ITA No.511/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 . 3. In the appeal filed before us, it was contended by the ld. AR that out of 3 notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), 2 notices were issued during the COVID period. As such, no fault can be attributed to the assessee on account of non-response to the notices issued during COVID period. The ld. AR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has effectively issued only one notice, which was not admittedly complied by the assessee but the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice and fair play, should have also issued one more notice giving final opportunity to the assessee before deciding the issue against the assessee. As such, the ld. AR before us, prayed to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) *for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR did not raise any objections if the matter is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law. 5. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our considered view, notices issued during the COVID period dated 16/03/2020 and 25/12/2020 cannot be a reason for disposal/ dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. As such, no fault can be attributed to the assessee for non compliance of such notices. Thus, we agree with the contention of the ld. AR that effectively only one opportunity was granted to the assessee to raise his contention, which is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operate during the proceedings before the ld. CIT-A. Hence, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. ITA No.511/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 . 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in court on 14 th day of May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (WASEEM AHMED) Vice President Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 14 th May, 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