SATENDRA,GARHMUKTESHWAR, HAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(5) HAPUR, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

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.2959/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13)
Satendra,
S/o Suresh Chand, Near-Thana Chopla,
Garhmuktwshwar, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh 245101
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: ICQPS-8811-B
बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5)
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri Jitin Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr.DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
29/07/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
29/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 05.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Jitin Kumar Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings dismissed appeal of the assessee. The ld.
Counsel submitted that the assessee is an illiterate person. While filing appeal before CIT(A), in Form No. 35 email address of advocate who was initially handling the case of assessee was given, he never communicated the notices to the assessee nor filed reply to the notices. Therefore, the assessee could not make submissions before the CIT(A). He further submitted that due to non service of 2
notices the assessment order was passed us/. 144 of the Income Tax Act,
1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed for upholding the impugned order.
4. Both sides heard. This appeal by the assessee is against ex-parte order passed by CIT(A). A perusal of the impugned order shows that three notices were issued to the assessee i.e. on 29.01.2021, 13.02.2024 & 21.02.2024, none of the notices were responded by the assessee. The assessee in Form No. 35, Column 17
has given email address ‘ramansharmataxadvocate@gmail.com’ for service of notice. It is contended that the relation between assessee and his tax consultant had gone sour therefore the assessee’s tax consultant neither replied to the notices nor informed the same to the assessee. Even the notices issued by the AO u/s. 148, 142(1) and 144 of the Act were purportedly not received by the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
5. If the assessee seeks to receive notice on any other email id, the assessee may update his current communication address including email details on the portal of Income Tax Department and PAN database within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
6. The assessee shall respond to notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

3
7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 29th day of July, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

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

NV/-

ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy 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.