IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.670 to 672/Bang/2016 (Assessment years: 2009-10 to 2011-12) Shri S.Muthaiah, No.762/13, Dhatri, I Stage, 2nd cross, Opp. St.Johns High School, Shivakumar Swamy Badavane, Davangere-577005. Appellant PAN: BEXPS 3420 N Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore. Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT(DR). Date of hearing : 27/09/2016 Date of pronouncement : 30/09/2016 ORDER Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are appeals filed by assessee against common order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-11, [CIT(A)], Bangalore, dated 12/02/2016, for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 2. assessee raised following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.670 to 672/Bang/2016 Page 2 ITA Nos.670 to 672/Bang/2016 Page 3 3. Briefly facts of case are that search and seizure operations u/s 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] were conducted in premises of assessee on 25/10/2010 as result of which certain incriminating material was found. Consequently, notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of Act on 26/3/2013. 4. Being aggrieved, appeals were preferred before CIT(A) who vide impugned order, had dismissed appeals for non- prosecution as well as for delay for condonation in filing of appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, assessee is before us in present appeals. It was argued that assessee could not appear before CIT(A) due to fact that he was in judicial custody on criminal proceedings implicating him in criminal offence. It was submitted that this is sufficient reasonable cause for not causing appearance before CIT(A). In light of this, it is submitted that matters may be restored back to file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. ITA Nos.670 to 672/Bang/2016 Page 4 learned Departmental Representative has no objection for this proposition. 6. After hearing rival submissions, we are of considered opinion that CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order for non- prosecution of appeal. However, we are satisfied that assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not causing appearance before CIT(A) as he was in judicial custody in criminal proceedings against him. Therefore, we remand matters back to file of CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7. In result, appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 30th September, 2016 sd/- sd/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place : Bangalore Dated : 30/09/2016 srinivasulu, sps Copy to : 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 CIT(A)-II Bangalore 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6 Guard file By order Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore S. Muthaiah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore