Meghana Satish Shetty Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case Meghana Satish Shetty Vs ITO, the ITAT Bangalore addressed appeals related to the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The appeals arose from orders issued by the NFAC, Delhi. The assessee had previously failed to comply with notices from the CIT-A due to a long gap of nearly four years between hearings, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the CIT-A’s notices were issued after this extended period, leading to claims of difficulties in tracking and responding to them, the ITAT decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication. The ITAT noted that despite the delay, the matter should be reconsidered on its merits, allowing the assessee another chance to present their case. Both appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes, directing the CIT-A to adjudicate the issues anew while ensuring that the assessee cooperates and does not seek unnecessary adjournments.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi both dated 24/05/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065123262(1) for the assessment year 2011-12 and DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065123381(1) for the assessment year 2013-14
2. At the outset, it was noticed that the assessee was served various notices intimating the date of hearing before the learned CIT-A but there was no compliance. In the absence of any cooperation by the assessee, the ld. CIT-A upheld the order of the AO. However, the ld. AR before submitted that it was 2nd round of litigation before the CIT-A in consequence to the direction issued by the ITAT vide order dated 13 September 2019. But the ld. CIT-A issued notice to the assessee 1st time dated 16 October 2023 after a gap of 4 years. As per the ld. AR, because of the long gap, the assessee could not keep a track on the notices issued by the learned CIT-A intimating the date of hearing. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person and therefore finds difficult to response the notices issued by the revenue authorities and therefore he requested to hear the matter on merit. As per the ld. AR, the assessee has a strong case in his favour on merit and therefore the matter should not be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication.
