SUJATHA MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(5), BANGALORE

SA 66/BANG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Sujatha Muniraju, the appellant, contesting an order from the Ld.CIT(A) dated 12/09/2023 related to the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant faced a delay of 334 days in filing the appeal, attributed to not receiving the appellate order in a timely manner and the illness of the person handling her taxation matters. The tribunal considered these reasons valid, condoned the delay, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh examination due to the ex-parte decision by the Ld.CIT(A) and the appellant's lack of legal assistance at the time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37708 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEHA SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHAY KUMAR

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.P. No. 66/Bang/2024 (in ITA No. 1967/Bang/2024) & ITA No. 1967/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Sujatha Muniraju, 103, Thimmenahalli, Chikkabanavara Post, Bangalore – 560 090. PAN: BCJPM1580R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2)(5), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Abhay Kumar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 15-01-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2025 ORDER PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of Ld.CIT(A) dated 12/09/2023 having DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055997839(1) and relates to A.Y. 2012-13. Page 2 of 3 S.P. No. 66/Bang/2024 & ITA No. 1967/Bang/2024 2. There is a delay of 334 days in the present appeal. Explaining the cause of delay Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that there are two reasons for the delay. A) The order of the Ld.CIT(A) has not been received via email or via physical post. B) The person who was handling the taxation matter was not physically well at that point of time. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a medical certificate of one Ms. R. Sujatha in support of his contentions. 3. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of the delay in the present appeal. 4. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the Ld.DR failed to refute the contention of the assessee with respect to the service of appellate order to the assessee in time. Further, there is a medical certificate issued by UPHC Medical Officer, certified that the assessee was not well from 10/09/2023 to 22/10/2023. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we hereby condone the delay of 334 days and proceeded to decide the matter. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee craved that one more opportunity may kindly be granted to the assessee for explaining his case before the AO. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Page 3 of 3 S.P. No. 66/Bang/2024 & ITA No. 1967/Bang/2024 8. We observed that in this case, the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the matter ex-parte. It is settled position of law that the Ld.CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the matter on merits as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra reported in 279 CTR 614. Further, it is observed that the assessee in this case is living in a remote area and has not proper legal assistance at that point of time, due to which the assessee has not been able to submit any evidences before the AO and therefore in the interest of justice, we remit this matter back to the file of AO for examining it afresh. We further clarify that in case the assessee could not cooperate with the department in remand proceedings, then no further lenience would be given to the assessee. With these observations, we hereby restore this matter to the file of AO. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 20th January, 2025. /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 "