Shri. Pathapathi Vijayakumar , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

MA 42/BANG/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5289 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA SAHAY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos. 1076 & 1077/Bang/2023) Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2018-19 Shri Pathapathi Vijayakumar, No. 76, 3 rd Floor, H V V Plaza, 15 th Cross, 4 th Main, Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 003. PAN: ACJPV1514B Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present miscellaneous petitions are filed by the assessee submitting that this Tribunal had remanded the issues for consideration afresh back to Ld.CIT(A). Page 2 of 3 M.P. Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos. 1076 & 1077/Bang/2023) 2. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order is also u/s. 144 and the other subsequent years are pending for assessment before the Ld.AO. He submitted that in the interest of justice, it would be beneficial for assessee as well as revenue if the issues are remanded to the Ld.AO as the verification can be done in a consolidated way for all the years pending assessment. 3. It is noted from the arguments that remand to the Assessing Officer would be beneficial since the order passed by the Ld.AO is u/s. 144 of the act. No details could be verified by the Assessing Officer for the years under consideration. Considering this factual circumstance, we rectify para 3 as under: “3. Before us, ld. A.R. submitted that assessee is not well versed in Income Tax Portal and failed to notice about the notice issued by the department digitally. Hence, he prayed that one more opportunity of hearing may be given before the Ld. AO. We accede to the request of the Ld. A.Rs. and remit the issue in dispute to the file of Ld.AO to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.” Page 3 of 3 M.P. Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos. 1076 & 1077/Bang/2023) Accordingly, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed. In the result, both the M.Ps. filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 07 th August, 2024. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore