Case Law Details
Namtech Electronic Devices Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In Namtech Electronic Devices Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) addressed an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) dated 31.07.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal was initially decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to the assessee’s failure to respond to multiple notices requesting written submissions. The assessee, a defunct company with minimal staff, argued that administrative issues prevented them from responding to the notices. They also stated that they had requested an adjournment for one of the hearings, which was denied by the CIT(A), leading to the ex-parte order.
The ITAT, while expressing disapproval of the assessee’s negligence in not responding to the notices, emphasized the need for justice and fairness. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee’s company was not operational, which contributed to the delay in communication. In light of these circumstances, the ITAT decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer (AO). The matter was restored to the AO’s file, with the condition that the assessee must cooperate fully and not seek unnecessary adjournments. This decision allowed the appeal to be continued for statistical purposes, giving the assessee a chance to resolve the issues at hand.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 31.07.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is
2018-19.
2. At the very outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that the assessee firm is a defunct, running with skeleton staff and is not generating any income. It was submitted that assessee’s staff failed to take note of the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, for one of the hearing notices, assessee sought adjournment which was not acceded to by the CIT(A) and he passed an ex-parte Order. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent its case before the AO.
4. The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee company is a defunct company and due to administrative reasons, assessee could not respond to the notices sent by the CIT(A). I strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing the written submissions on time. However, in the interest of justice and equity, I am of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the file of AO. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
6. 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.
Author Bio
