Case Law Details
Behra Gopal Krishna Rao Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Bangalore recently delved into a matter where a retired employee, Behra Gopal Krishna Rao, found himself at odds with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) due to his unfamiliarity with online computer services. This led to a non-compliance with notices sent to his email.
Analysis: Behra Gopal Krishna Rao, having retired from Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, had filed his income return for the year 2016-17, which was later selected for scrutiny. Following the scrutiny, there was a discrepancy related to a claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act, which brought the case to the FAA’s attention.
However, the FAA’s method of communication, predominantly through email, posed a challenge for Rao. As a retiree, he wasn’t acquainted with the intricacies of computers or email operations. Thus, he inadvertently missed responding to the notices sent to him by the FAA, leading the FAA to dismiss his appeal without a thorough assessment.
The ITAT, having heard both sides, acknowledged the genuine concern raised by Rao’s representative. The Tribunal empathized with the challenge faced by individuals, especially the older generation, in navigating the digital world.
Conclusion: Understanding the potential gaps in digital communication, especially when considering the demographic involved, the ITAT rightly chose to allow the case a fresh examination. This decision not only brings the case to justice but also underscores the importance of ensuring that communication methods are accessible and comprehensible to all, irrespective of their technological proficiency.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the CIT(A)’ s Order dated 21.04.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Assessee is a retired employee of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Assessee had filed return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.10,32,970/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 18.09.2017. The assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 24.12.2018. In the said Assessment Order, AO had computed income from long term capital gains of Rs.44,97,253/- by denying the claim of exemption under section 54 of the Act.
3.Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits since there was no response to the notices issued from the Office of the FAA to file submissions / documents in support of assessee’s case.
4.Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR, though initially gave an adjournment application, however, withdrew the same. The learned AR submitted that assessee is not well versed in operation of computer and did not take notice of the various notices issued online and therefore could not submit the details / documents in support of its case before the FAA. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the issue on merits.
5.The learned DR duly supported the order of the AO/CIT(A).
6.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessee was issued various notices from the Office of the FAA for the assessee to provide written submissions / documents in support of his case. However, since there was no compliance to these notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. The learned AR submitted before us that the assessee is a retired employee and is not well versed in operation of computers and failed to open emails to which notices were sent by the FAA. We are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue in filing of his written submissions / documents in support of his case. 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.
