SRI. PARAMAHAMSA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA(N),TUMKUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, TUMKUR

ITA 1800/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Paramahamsa Pattina Sahakara Sangha, the appellant, contesting an order from the Addl/JCIT(A) dated 12.12.2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was initially filed with a delay of 221 days, for which a condonation petition was submitted and accepted by the ITAT. The primary issue arose because the assessee did not receive the appellate notices due to their request to avoid email communications, leading to an ex-parte decision against them. Upon realizing the order through an audit check of the IT portal, the assessee sought to have the matter revisited, citing the lack of proper communication as the reason for their absence in the initial hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33484 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH HEGDE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT R ITA No.1800/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Paramahamsa Pattina Sahakara Sangha (N), B H Road, Batawadi, Tumkur – 572 103. PAN : AANAS 1986 P Vs. ITO, Ward – 3, Tumkur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Prakash Hegde, CA Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 21.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 O R D E R Per George George K, Vice President: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the Order of Addl / JCIT(A) dated 12.12.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017- 18. 2. There is a delay of 221 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the reasons for the belated filing of the appeal. The Manager of the assessee Trust has also filed an affidavit in support of the condonation application. On perusal of the reasons stated for late filing of the appeal, I am of the view that no latches can be ITA No.1800/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 3 attributed to the assessee as there is sufficient cause for belated filing of this appeal. Hence, I condone the delay and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 3. At the very outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee has been decided ex-parte since assessee did not submit the written submissions / documents during the course of appellate proceedings in spite of several hearing notices being issued. It is submitted by the learned AR that the assessee’s employees are not very conversant with the usage of email communication and hence were not aware of the notices served upon the assessee. It was submitted that in Form 35, assessee had requested the Addl / JCIT(A) not to send notices / communication through email. It is stated that assessee did not receive any hard copies of the hearing notices. It was submitted that assessee came to know of the Addl / JCIT(A)’s Order only on 04.09.2024 when its legal representative had checked the IT portal during the course of audit. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, as last opportunity, the matter may be remitted to the First Appellate Authority. 4. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee could not appear before Addl / JCIT(A) since assessee’s employees were not conversant with the usage of email communication. In this context, it is relevant to note that in Form 35, assessee had requested the Addl / JCIT(A) not to send notice / communication by email. Since assessee did not receive any hard copies of the notices issued from the Office of the Addl / JCIT(A), assessee could not appear during the course of appellate proceedings. In the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that one more opportunity ought to be provided to the assessee to present its case. Accordingly, the matter is restored the files of the ITA No.1800/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 3 Addl / JCIT(A). Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in the matter. It is ordered accordingly. 6. 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/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Vice President Bangalore. Dated: 21.10.2024. /NS/* Copy to: 1. Appellants 2. Respondent 3. DRP 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 7. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. "