Bangalore Management Association, Bangalore V. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 595/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6697 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: THARUN KOTHARI
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLIA, JUDIIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.595/Bang/2023 Assessment year : 2016-17 Bangalore Management Association, B-207, Blue Cross Chambers, II Floor, 11, Infantry Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: AAAAB 0582B Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate & Shri Tharun Kothari, CA Respondent by : Shri Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 10.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054151707(1) dated 05.07.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC] for the AY 2016-17. 2. The sole issue raised in this appeal by the assessee during the course of argument is that the CIT(Appeals) has not accepted the ITA No.595/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3 documents filed by it and no notice was served to the assessee before passing the order. He submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act and also filed a paperbook containing pages 1 to 61 filed before the CIT(A)/AO and submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has ignored the same and passed the ex parte order without considering the submissions of the assessee. Therefore the ld. AR requested that a chance should be given to the assessee for representing its case before the Assessing Officer on the addition made of Rs.1,22,59,028. 3. The ld. DR strongly objected to the request of the assessee and relied on the orders of lower authorities. He submitted that both the authorities gave sufficient opportunity to the assessee, however, the assessee did not represent which is clear from their orders and notices were sent @ e-mail address provided by the assessee. 4. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not represent before the AO, therefore the AO made addition to the gross receipts of Rs.1,22,59,028 in the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted documents at Sl.No.1 to 5 of the PB, however, the CIT(Appeals) has not considered the same. Considering the present facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we think it fit to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Accordingly, the AO is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. The ITA No.595/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3 assessee is directed to file necessary documents for substantiating its case and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. It is also directed that the assessee furnish the correct address / email address to the AO. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 10 th day of October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 10 th October, 2023. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.