VISHAL GUPTA, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO WARD 7(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in Iron and Steel goods. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.1,17,17,785/- on account of alleged unverified purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issue on merits, citing non-prosecution on the part of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the hearing notices during first appeal were sent to an email address (ca_tarsem@yahoo.com) which belonged to the earlier counsel engaged by the assessee. The Ld. AR pointed out that the current updated email address (sudhir@sehgalassociates.com) was duly reflected on the ITBA portal and the same has also been specified in Form No. 36 as filed before Tribunal. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee was thus prevented by sufficient cause for not preferring any submissions during first appeal. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to remand back the matter which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. 4. We find substantial merit in the contention of Ld. AR and accordingly, inclined to accept the same. In our considered view, no litigant should suffer due to procedural miscommunications or technical lapses in serving notices. The principles of natural justice demand that the assessee be afforded a proper and effective