Mohammed Sanaulla, Bengaluru V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bengaluru

ITA 679/BANG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0236 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69; 144; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.679/Bang/2023 Assessment Year :2017-18 Shri. Mohammed Sanaulla, No.361/2, 4 th Floor, 2 nd Main Road, Gangodahalli, Chandra Layout, Nayandahalli, Bengaluru – 569 039. PAN : BGRPM 8705 L Vs.ITO, Ward – 3(5)(6), Bengaluru. APPELLANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri.Hemant Pai, CA Revenue by :Shri.Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing:02.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement:02.11.2023 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 09.08.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Assessee has raised several legal grounds as well as the grounds relating to the merits. However, during the course of hearing, assessee did not press any of the legal grounds and pressed only for hearing of the grounds on merits viz., addition of Rs.12,79,451/- under section 69 of the Act. 3. The learned AR submitted that assessee had given relevant papers to the ITP. However, ITP had failed to appear before the CIT(A). Further it was submitted that assessee had met with an accident and was hospitalized during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore could not follow up the ITP. The ITA No.679/Bang/2023 Page 2 of 3 assessee placed on record copy of FIR, discharge summary, etc. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. Further, it was submitted that hearing notices before CIT(A) were not complied since assessee had failed to take notice of the same as assessee was a computer illiterate and did not open his email ID. 4. The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued six notices from 28.01.2021 to 26.07.2023. Since there was no compliance to the notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. I strongly deprecate the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the issue on merits is restored to the files of the AO. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 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: 02.11.2023. /NS/* ITA No.679/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 3 Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.DRP4.CIT 5.CIT(A)6.DR,ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.