KRISHNAMURTHY RANGAPPA,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1308/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Krishnamurthy Rangappa against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), which was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution, as the appellant was unaware of the hearing notices. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on their merits and set aside the order, directing a de novo hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716388 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), PCIT (Central) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAV KRISHNA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1308/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnamurthy Rangappa, 2, Manjunatha Nilaya, Little Flower Hospital, R.M. Nagar, Bangalore-560016. PAN NO : AGPPR2719C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Pranav Krishna – Advocate Respondent by : Sri Balusamy N - JCIT Date of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by Krishnamurthy Rangappa against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) passed U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Asst Year 2018-19 on 18/03/2025 emanating from Assessment Order dated 09/04/2021 passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The impugned order of the CIT(A), NFAC passed U/s. 250 of the Act is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without affording fair and adequate opportunity of representation to the Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 5 ITA No.1308/Bang/2025 Krishnamurthy Rangappa vs. ITO appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the assessment order for default without effectively going into the merits of the grounds of appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that it is a well settled position of law that no appeal can be dismissed merely on grounds of non-prosecution and the grounds of the appeal ought to be adjudicated on the material available on record even in such circumstances. 5. The appellant denied himself liable to be assessed to Rs. 1,44,59,500/- as against the total income of Rs. 89,59,500/- as returned by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that on the merits of the case, the agricultural income declared in the return of income of Rs. 55,00,000/- is itself treated as income from other sources and added back to the assessee’s total income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The appellant denied the liability to pay interest U/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest levied being erroneous is liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant craves for leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. 9. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed for the advancement of substantial cause of justice and equity.” 3. Submissions of the Ld. AR: The Ld. AR filed the written submissions. Relevant paras of the written submissions are as under: “6. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC appears to have issued hearing notices by email to [e-mail] Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 5 ITA No.1308/Bang/2025 Krishnamurthy Rangappa vs. ITO with cc to [e-mail]. The email Id [e-mail] belongs to the auditor of the appellant. However, the appellant is given to understand that at the relevant time, the inbox of the said email ID was full and hence the emails were not being delivered into the inbox of the said email ID. Thus, the auditors were not aware of the notices. The other email ID [e-mail] belongs to the earlier accountant of the appellant who is no more in the service of the appellant. The said accountant has not informed the appellant of the notices being received. Thus, the appellant was completely unaware of the notices being issued by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 7. In the above background, the notices were not responded to resulting in passing of the impugned appellant order on 18/03/2025. The fact of the impugned order being passing came to the knowledge of the appellant when he had logged into the income tax Departmental e-portal for some other purposes in early April 2025 and incidentally the pending proceedings were reviewed.” The Ld. AR therefore requested that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee. 4. Submissions of the Ld. DR: The Ld. DR has not objected to set-aside the case to the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee before him. The Ld. CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 5 ITA No.1308/Bang/2025 Krishnamurthy Rangappa vs. ITO 6. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.\" Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 5 ITA No.1308/Bang/2025 Krishnamurthy Rangappa vs. ITO 7. Thus, as per the provisions of section 250 of the Act, it is mandatory for the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since the appeal has been set-aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication, we do not intend to adjudicate the case on the merits of the addition. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2025 Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) Judicial Member Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 21st August, 2025. OKK/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "