ODISHA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

Shri B.K.Ma B.K.Mahapatra and A.K.Sabat, ld ARs appeared for appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

It was submitted by ld AR that the impugned orders have been passed by ld CIT(A) exparte on the ground of non-prosecution by the assessee without considering the merits of the case. Ld AR submitted that the assessee, in form No, 35 had opted for service of notice other than email. However, notices were sent by ld CIT(A) only through email and not by physically. Ld AR also pointed out that the ld CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeals exparte without adjudicating the issues on merits. Therefore, ld AR prayed that the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 and for the assessment year 2017-18 to the file of the Assessing officer for fresh consideration.

In reply, ld CIT DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. It was the submission of ld AR that the assessee had specifically opted physical notices but this was not done by ld CIT(A). To the request of ld AR that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A)/AO, it was asked by the Bench why the cost should not be imposed. To this, it was the submission of ld AR that the cost should not be levied on the assessee as a failure on the part of the ld CIT(A) to send the notice in physical mode.

It is noticed from the order of the ld CIT(A) that when the first notice was issued, the assessee sought adjournment. Thus, it is clear that the P a g e 2 | 4 to 220 /CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 assessee was aware of the posting of the appeals for hearing. It is not that the assessee is computer illiterate. In fact, Form 36 carries a digital signature in the verification column also. It may also be mentioned that ITAT has also been sending notices by email and surprisingly, this is acceptable to the assessee. It is only when the cost has been raised, the assessee has come forward with arguments that there is violation of his rights. It is a well-known fact that the appeal hearing had gone online as early as in 2016 and now the claim of the assessee that physical notices are still required even in 2021 to 2024 is far-fetched. It is not that the assessee did not have any knowledge that its appeals were being taken up for disposal. This being so, though the argument of the assessee is attempted to avoid cost, considering the fact that the assessee being a State Government Undertaking, a nominal cost of Rs.10,000/- per appeal is being levied. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the orders of the ld CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for the assessment years 2014- 15 & 2015-16 and to the file of the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2017-18 to readjudicate the issue after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.