Case Law Details
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.
3. On the contrary the ld. DR contended that the assessee is not vigilant to pursue the matter and therefore the same should be dismissed. According to the ld. DR the assessee has no case on merit and therefore he is purposely avoiding to response to the notices issued by the ld. CIT-A even during the 2nd round of litigation.
4. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. DR also contended that the assessee did not appeal before the ld. CIT-A and therefore the same should not be heard by the ITAT on merit after bypassing the ld. CIT appeal. According to the ld. DR, the matter at the most can be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication on merit as per the provisions of law.
5. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the assessee has been negligent in pursuing the appeal before the ld. CIT-A. Admittedly, it is the 2nd round of litigation before us. The ITAT on the earlier occasion vide order dated 13 September 2019 has set aside issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Indeed, the ld. CIT-A has issued notice to the assessee 1st time in consequence to the direction of the ITAT after a gap of almost 4 years but in between there was covid pandemic which is sufficient to justify the gap of 4 years. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld. CIT-A along with the cogent and supporting materials. It is also directed that the assessee shall cooperate during the proceedings and shall not seek any adjournment without just cause. Hence, with this observation, we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Coming to ITA No. 1172/Bang/2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14
7. The facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case discussed above, therefore, respectfully following the same, we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the combine result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court virtually on 21st day of August, 2024
Author Bio
