Assessee Smt. Leelavathy Nagaraj, Bangalore The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(2)(3), Bangalore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C’’BENCH: BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.655/Bang/2020
AssessmentYear: 2012 – 13

Smt. Leelavathy Nagaraj
No.64/2, Gurumurthappa Garden
Sarakki Main Road, J.P. Nagar
Bangalore-560 078
PAN NO : ABPPN4992C
APPELLANT 

Vs.

ITO
Ward-7(2)(3)
Bangalore
RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Ravi Kiran, A.R.
Respondent by : Smt. R. Premi, D.R.

Date of Hearing : 01.12.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2020

O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 1.8.2019 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the A.O. in an ex-parte order passed by him.

2. The appeal is barred by limitation by 132 days. The assessee has filed an application requesting the bench to condone the delay. Having regard to the submissions made therein, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

3. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is an old lady and did not have anyone to properly advice her. Hence, she could not properly represent her case before the tax authorities due to lack of proper advice. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the A.O. has passed the order to the best of his judgement u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] and the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to properly represent her case, since she has engaged the present counsel only recently.

4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee did not cooperate before the tax authorities and hence, both the tax authorities have passed orders ex-parte.

To know more in details find the attachment file