Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM
Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Sh. Shyam Saboo Revenue/Respondent by : MS Smitha V. Nair Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2023 O R D E R Per N. K. Choudhry, JM:
The Assessee has preferred this appeal against the order dated 25.04.2023 impugned herein passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi {in short ‘NFAC’}/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In the instant case, it appears from the impugned order that various notices starting from 24th Oct, 2019 till 21st Sept, 2022 have been issued to the Assessee however, the Assessee neither appeared nor filed any reply. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on non-prosecution but not on merits. The ld. AR Sh. Shyam Saboo, CA, honestly, conceded that the Assessee has committed default by not appearing before ld. CIT(A), however, the notices of the appellate proceedings were sent through e- mail at e-mail address i.e. caabhi.efiling@gmail.com as mentioned in Form No. 35, which infact in fact belongs to ex- employee of the Assessee, who left the services since long back and not informed the Assessee qua notices received qua appellate proceedings. However, now the Assessee has changed its e-mail with the revenue department and undertakes to appear and file the relevant documents whatever would be needed by the ld. Commissioner and in future would be more conscious and will make every compliance in accordance with law.
I observe that the Assessee on 4th April, 2016 had filed first appeal against the assessment order dated 4th June, 2016 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, however, the first notice as appeared in the impugned order was sent on 24th April, 2019 and thereafter more notices lastly on 21st Sept, 2022 have been sent. It is a fact that most of the notices have been issued during the Covid-19 period and the reason given by the ld. AR for Jagmohan Kabra HUF non-compliance seems to be genuine, as there is no contrary material available on record to draw any presumption against the Assessee’s claim . Considering peculiar facts and circumstances as the ld. CIT(A) because of non-filing of reply/documents by the Assessee, failed to decide the appeal in proper manner and on merit as well, hence for just decision of the case and to resolve the controversy and for the ends of justice, I am inclined to remand the instant case to the file of ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and to appear if requires and file the relevant reply/document(s) which would be needed for proper and real adjudication of the case. In case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. In the aforesaid terms, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed fro statistical purposes.