The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) viewed that the assessee couldn’t contact the Tax Consultant due to a dislocation of business and remanded the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Shri Rajesh Laxmikanth Varnerkar, the appellant assessee challenged the order of CIT(A)’s passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘the Act’ ). The relevant Assessment Year is 2014-15.
The appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that the assessee did not respond to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) for filing the written submissions. The AR submitted that due to the dislocation of business activity, the assessee could not contact his tax consultant who was looking after taxation matters. It was also submitted that notices from the Office of the CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of his tax consultant who did not observe the mail on account of his father’s ill health. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits since the assessee has not responded to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). Due to the dislocation of business activity, the assessee could not contact his tax consultant who was looking after the assessee’s taxation matters.
Since notices from the Office of the CIT(A) were sent to the email ID of his tax consultant who did not observe the mail on account of his father’s ill health, the Two member bench comprising of Shri George George K, Vice President and Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member directed to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the files of the CIT(A).
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
