MOHD RASHID,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHAR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.3650/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Mohd Rashid,
C/o CA Vaibhav Goel,
75, Navyug Market, 1st Floor, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh 201001

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: ARSPR-9970-P

बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2),
Aayakar Bhawan, Teachers Colony,
Bhagwant Marg, Race Course Colony,
Laxmi Nagar, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh 203001
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri Vaibhav Goel, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
30/07/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
30/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax(Appeals), Kochi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 18.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Vaibhav Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) had issued three notices to the assessee i.e. on 28.02.2025, 09.03.2025 and 2
13.03.2025 on wrong email id. The notices were sent by the CIT(A) on email id
‘mohdamiradv30@gmail.com’ whereas in Form No. 35 the assessee had given email address ‘akbarpurtravels@gmail.com’ for service of notice. The ld. Counsel submitted that since the notices were sent on the wrong email address they were never received by the assessee. Hence, the assessee could not respond to the notices.
3. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and submitted that the assessee is recalcitrant. The assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) nor before the CIT(A).
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has upheld the additions made in the assessment order. A perusal of order shows that the CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee on email id ‘mohdamiradv30@gmail.com’ whereas in Column No. 17 of Form No. 35 the assessee has given email address ‘akbarpurtravels@gmail.com’ for service of notices. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
5. The CIT(A) shall issue notice to the assessee on email address provided in column no. 17 of Form No. 35. 6. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the CIT(A), without fail.

3
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wedne ay the 30th day of July,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 11/08/2025

NV/-

ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.