Case Law Details
Heggur Nanjundappa Vishwanath Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In the case of Heggur Nanjundappa Vishwanath Vs The Income Tax Officer, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru, ITAT Bangalore sets aside CIT(A) ex-parte order on the grounds that assessee was not given a fair chance of being heard during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A). The assessee had made specific request in Form-35 that communication should not be made through mail. Assessee submitted that he is a senior citizen, is not tech-savvy and was unaware about the notices sent to his email. Despite the specific request made, all notices and hearing details were exclusively sent via email. These procedural lapses raised concerns about whether assessee was given a fair chance to represent his case. Natural justice demands that every taxpayer should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which, in this case, appears to have been denied.
This led to an ex-parte order being passed against him. It was held that appellate order suffers from procedural irregularities. Further assessee’s age, financial difficulties and family issues added weight to his claim. The matter was referred back AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was also directed to fully cooperate with the AO and ensure timely compliance. The Appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 12/11/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070294092(1) for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. In the present case, the main contention raised by the assessee is that he was not given a proper opportunity to present his case during the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s learned counsel submitted that the assessee is not tech-savvy and was unaware of the notices sent to his email. Due to this, he could not respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order being passed against him.
3. It was further pointed out that, in Form 35, the assessee had clearly stated that communication should not be made through email. However, despite this specific request, all notices and hearing details were exclusively sent via email. This procedural lapse raises concerns about whether the assessee was given a fair chance to represent his case. Natural justice demands that every taxpayer should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, which, in this case, appears to have been denied. The failure to comply with this fundamental principle vitiates the appellate order.
4. The Departmental Representative opposed the contention of the assessee, stating that the assessee had been negligent in pursuing the income tax proceedings, as he had also failed to appear during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, it was argued that a cost should be imposed on the assessee for his non-compliance.
5. However, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee is an elderly individual who has been facing financial distress and business losses since 2016. Additionally, he has been affected by family disputes, which further impacted his ability to comply with tax proceedings. The learned counsel assured that the assessee is now fully prepared to comply with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer (AO) and present all necessary documents to support his case.
6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and carefully considered the submissions made by both parties, it is evident that the appellate order suffers from procedural irregularities. The ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte which is a concern regarding the fairness of the proceedings. Given that tax matters have significant financial and legal implications, it is essential that proceedings be conducted in a manner that ensures a fair opportunity to present one’s case. Furthermore, the assessee’s age, financial difficulties, and family issues add weight to his claim that he was unable to comply with the email notices.
6. However, it is true that the assessee has not appeared during the assessment proceedings too. Accordingly, if we set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT-A, for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law, the learned CIT-A has to call for the remand report from the AO. Therefore, in the fitness of the justice, we are inclined to set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law so as to avoid the multiple proceedings. Moreover, the act of filing the appeal by the assessee and appearance of counsel on his behalf clearly indicates the seriousness of the assessee in pursuing the matter hence forth. Thus, in the interest of justice and to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present his case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO and ensure timely compliance with the proceedings. The AO shall conduct the proceedings afresh, considering all relevant submissions and evidence placed before him, and pass an order in accordance with the law.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 6th day of March, 2025
Author Bio
