Ita/420/2023 Of M/S Anjappar Chettinad Ac Restaurant v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Digitally signed byMALA K NLocation: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:23633-DBITA No.420 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF JULY, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.420 OF 2023BETWEEN: M/S ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD AC RESTAURANT, (REP BY A MARUTHAPANDIAN )PARTNER 100 FT ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038 PAN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE (AY 2018-19) CPC, BANGALORE (AY 2018-19) 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, CPC, BANGALORE(AY 2019-20) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP, STANDING COUNSEL) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO: A) TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE - 2 - APPELLANT; B) TO HOLD THE TRIBUNAL ORDER TO THAT EXTENT HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS BAD IN LAW, IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE SMC-A BENCH IN MP NOS.14 AND 15/BANG/2023 (IN ITA NOS. 393 AND 452/BANG/2022) DATED 07.02.2023 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2018-2019 AND 2019-2020, ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Heard Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, learned Advocate for the assessee and Shri M. Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. 2. Learned Advocate for the assessee submitted that in Miscellaneous Petition No.14 and 15/Bang/2023 decided on 07[th]February, 2023, impugned in this appeal, the assessee could not appear as the notice was served on one of the employees of the assessee who did not bring it to the notice of the Management. The said miscellaneous petition was filed by the Revenue on the ground that the Tribunal had not followed the judgment of the Apex Court. According to him, the Tribunal had correctly followed the judgment. Hence, the Miscellaneous Petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal. - 3 - 3. We have perused the impugned order passed on the Miscellaneous Petition. It is recorded in paragraph 4 of the order that notice was sent to the assessee by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due on 11.01.2023 notifying the date of hearing as 20.01.2023. The order does not disclose as to whether the assessee was served. 4. Shri M. Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the assessee has not pleaded the grounds orally urged with regard to his non-appearance in the miscellaneous petition. Therefore, the said grounds do not merit any consideration. 5. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the assessee and learned standing counsel for the Revenue and perused the records. 6. It is settled principle that a litigant is entitled for a fair hearing. We have noticed that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding as to whether the assessee was indeed served. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the assessee needs to be given an opportunity to contest the miscellaneous petition. Hence, the following: - 4 - O R D E R (i) Order dated 07.02.2023 passed in MP Nos.14 and 15/BANG/2023 by the Income Nos.14 and 15/BANG/2023 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC-A’ Bench, Bangalore is set aside; Bangalore is set aside; (ii) Assessee and the Revenue shall appear before the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, on 18.08.2023 without waiting for notice; before the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, on 18.08.2023 without waiting for notice; (iii) All contentions of both parties are kept open. Appeal disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE