HASTIMAL,JALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, JALORE

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.10.2021 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18 challenging therein the impugned order passed ex-parte qua the assessee.

Hastimal v. ITO 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has explained the delay of 368 days with the support of notarized affidavit dated 18.08.2022 in filing the appeal against the impugned order stating that the appellant is living in small village being salaried and agriculturist and is not very conversant with the email and messages received on the mobile, and it was come to his knowledge only when demand notice received for recovery and the assessee has appointed the present counsel who while checking online, came to know the status of the appeal and immediately filed the appeal. He pleaded that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and the disputed amount being less than 10,00,000/- being deposited cash deposited during demonetization period the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. The ld. DR has no objection to the request of the assessee in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case and accordingly the delay is condoned and appeal admitted on merits.

Hastimal v. ITO notices dated 19.12.2021, 23.09.2021 and 05.10.2021 but the appellant has not submitted its response to these notices. The ld. AR submitted that the appeal has not been adjudicated on merits of the case by ld. CIT(A) and that the rejection of the appeal in such arbitrary manner without service of notice on the assessee is bad in law. The notices as mentioned in the appellate order have not been received by the appellant till date, it is only when the status of the appeal was checked online, it came to know that the appeal has already been decided ex-parte. In support he placed reliance on the case law on the issue that lack of knowledge of electronic services of notice is a sufficient cause, for non compliance as under:

“That Delhi Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Egis international S.A. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1663/Del/2021) A.Y. 2016-17, vide order Dt. 03.08.2023, while dealing with the identical facts has restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee because it was brought on record before the Hon’ble Bench that the notices sent to the e-mail of the employee did not reach the assessee and the non-compliance was not deliberate.”

Hastimal v. ITO parte order was passed without appreciating the facts regarding the cash deposited of Rs.9,00,000/- out of salaried income and agricultural income in the assessee’s bank account during demonetization period. He pleaded that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting proper opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee and considering the written submissions to be filed during the course of appellate proceedings. In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal afresh as per law after granting sufficient opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee. No doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).

Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.12.2023