Case Law Details
Karalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Cochin)
The recent appeal of Karalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd against the Income Tax Officer (ITO) in ITAT Cochin holds significance for the case proceedings involving the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)). The case accentuates the importance of providing reasoned decisions in line with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
The main point of contention in the case revolved around the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal from the assessee, allegedly without providing adequate opportunity for presenting its case. The assessee argued that the pandemic restrictions and lack of proper hearing notice resulted in their inability to attend the proceedings. The CIT(A)’s order was deemed as ex-parte, lacking sufficient reasons for dismissing the appeal. This raised questions on the procedural fairness of the decision, leading ITAT to scrutinize the validity of CIT(A)’s order.
In the assessment of ITAT Cochin, the order was not justified as it failed to provide reasons for each issue, contravening sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. This observation led to the conclusion that the order was not adjudicated on merit and without due opportunity given to the assessee, and hence needed to be set aside.
Conclusion: The case underlines the essence of fair play and justice in legal proceedings. The ITAT Cochin’s order in favor of the assessee bank reinstates the significance of reasoned decisions for each issue raised before the CIT(A). Furthermore, it emphasizes the responsibility of the appellate authority to provide sufficient opportunity for the assessees to present their case. This development is a positive step in ensuring transparency and fairness in tax appeal proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT COCHIN
These are appeal preferred by the assessee co-operative society against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 08.12.2022 for AY 2009-10 & AY 2014-15. The assessee has also filed Stay Petitions along with Income Tax Appeals. However, since both parties agree to hearing of the appeals on merit, we proceed to hear the appeal on merit and therefore the stay petitions have become infructuous and dismissed. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, initially the appeal against the action of the AO was filed before the Ld. CIT(A), Thrissur and the appeals were fixed for hearing on 10.12.2019 wherein the assessee had filed all the relevant documents before him (Ld. CIT(A), Thrissur). Thereafter, the assessee received notices only for hearing fixed on 11.03.2020 and 27.01.2021. However, the assessee was unable to appear/take part in the proceedings due to Covid-19 Pandemic restriction. On 08.06.2022, when the appeal was last fixed for hearing, the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing. To buttress this fact the assessee had filed an affidavit and also has under taken before us that given an opportunity, the assessee would diligently appear/file written submission and other relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and participate in the First Appellate Proceedings without fail.
3. Per contra, the Ld. DR does not want us has to give second innings to assessee
4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. We note that the assessee’s appeal was migrated from Ld. CIT(A) Thrissur to NFAC; and even though, assessee had filed the relevant documents/PB before the Ld. CIT(A) at Thrissur on 10.12.2019, the Ld. NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal of the assessee has noted that despite the matter was listed on 10.12.2019, 11.03.2020, 26.01.2021 and 08.06.2022, the assessee failed to respond to his notices, so he dismissed the appeal. According to the assessee, it appeared before Ld. CIT(A) on 10.12.2019 and filed relevant documents/PB whereas on 11.03.2020 and 26.01.2021 due to restrictions clamped down [Covid-19 Pandemic] it could not appear, and it was not aware of the hearing fixed on 08.06.2022 since assessee did not get any notice of hearing. Be that as it may, we note that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee is not on merits and without hearing the assessee. Therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be countenanced. As per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall be by giving reasons for decision on each issues raised before him. Taking note of the fact assessee had filed the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A) on 10.12.2019, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeals back to the file of Ld CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act; and the assessee is directed to be diligent and appear/file written submissions/paper book as per law. And the assessee has brought to our notice that the email address of appellant is karalamscb600@gmail.com which is registered in the income tax portal as a primary email id. The Ld. CIT(A) after issuing notice to the assessee and after giving opportunity to assessee is directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance to law.
5. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petitions are dismissed as infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 05/06/2023.
