Case Law Details
Rajesh Laxmikanth Varnerkar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Introduction: The case of Rajesh Laxmikanth Varnerkar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) highlights the challenges faced by the assessee in contacting their tax consultant due to the dislocation of business activities. This article delves into the details of the case and the decision rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Bangalore.
Detailed Analysis: The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices for filing written submissions. However, the assessee’s representative explained that due to the dislocation of business activities, they couldn’t reach their tax consultant, who was responsible for taxation matters. Moreover, notices from the CIT(A) were sent to the tax consultant’s email, which went unnoticed due to the consultant’s personal circumstances.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) acknowledged the challenges faced by the assessee and deemed it necessary to provide another opportunity for the assessee to represent their case. The issues were remanded to the files of the CIT(A), with directions for the assessee to cooperate with the revenue authorities and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Conclusion: The decision of the ITAT in favor of the assessee underscores the importance of fair representation and procedural justice. Despite the initial failure to respond to notices, the tribunal recognized the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee and granted them another chance to present their case. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in tax disputes and the need for flexibility in the adjudication process.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
