M/S. OM SAKTHY SEEDS FIRM,PALANI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL

Since identical facts and issues are involved in these three appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.694/CHNY/2026 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.694/CHNY/2026 raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is against the principles of equity and natural justice.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard and is therefore, in violation of principles of equity and natural justice.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte without serving any notices of hearing on the email address provided by the appellant in Form 35 i.e "rjkknn@gmail.com", and instead, mailed the notices to one email address "srijanaauditor@yahoo.com" which does not belong to the appellant and therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellant without providing an opportunity of being heard is against the principles of equity and natural justice and therefore, ought to be set aside.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte by mailing the notices on the wrong email address of the Chartered Accountant of the appellant at "srijanaauditor@yahoo.com" instead of mailing the same to "srijanaauditor@yahoo.co.in" which is the correct email address of the appellant's Chartered Accountant and therefore, as the hearing notices were neither received by the appellant on the email address provided in Form 35 nor on the correct email address of the appellant's Chartered Accountant, the ex- parte impugned order passed is invalid and deserves to be set aside.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte by holding that the appellant did not respond to any of the hearing notices issued nor did it file any written submissions or evidences substantiating the claim of the appellant when infact, the appellant did not receive any hearing notices at all on the email address provided by the appellant in Form 35 nor in the email address of the appellant's Chartered Accountant and consequently, the finding is completely contrary to the facts on record and therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order by giving findings at Para 4.1 of the impugned order which are unconnected to the case of the appellant and therefore, the impugned order is passed without any application of mind and therefore, deserves to be set aside.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC as the upward adjustment made with regard to the denial of agricultural rebate to the tune of Rs.2,63,832 is beyond the scope of the powers of the CPC to make adjustments under section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC as the agricultural rebate to the tune of Rs.2,63,832 was denied without attributing any reasons to the same and therefore, the said intimation is null and void.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC as the agricultural rebate to the tune of Rs.2,63,832 was denied when infact, based on the objections raised by the CPC, the appellant carried out the rectifications and filed the revised return dated 28.03.2019 which was acted upon by the CPC and denying the rebate without mentioning any reasons is unjustified and therefore, liable to be quashed.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC qua denial of agricultural rebate to the tune of Rs.2.63,832 as the said adjustment falls neither within the ambit of the adjustments mentioned section 143(1)(a) nor under clause (a) to the Explanation in section 143(1) of the Act and therefore, the scope of the adjustment is beyond the powers of the CPC and therefore, the impugned intimation is liable to be quashed.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC as the disallowance of agricultural rebate was made without following the mandate prescribed under the 1 proviso to section 143(1)(a) which mandates providing notice to the assessee before making the adjustment which was not at all followed in the instant case under consideration.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the intimation issued by the CPC qua denial of agricultural rebate as there is no dispute with regard to the factum of agricultural income earned by the appellant and the same was acknowledged by the CPC as well and agricultural rebate was denied without any reason and therefore, once the claim of agricultural income was acknowledged and accepted by the CPC, the agricultural rebate is only consequential and the same ought to have been allowed.

The Learned CIT(A)-NFAPC erred in upholding the action of the CPC insofar as levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.”

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the business growing and selling of agricultural seeds. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 filed on 09.10.2017 disclosing NIL Income and the same was revised Return of Income on 17.10.2017 disclosing NIL income after claiming exemption u/s.10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said Return of Income was processed by CPC u/s.143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25.05.2019 denying claim for exemption of agricultural income u/s.10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.8,79,435/- and the entire income was taxed at normal rate of tax.

Being aggrieved by the above intimation, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The Learned Counsel submits that the ld.CIT(A) had sent the notice of hearing to wrong email id :“srijanaauditor@yahoo.com” instead of email id : “rjkknn@gmail.com” provided in Form-35, therefore, it is prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) for denovo disposal of appeal.

On the other hand, Learned Sr.DR has no serious objection to remand the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A), we order accordingly.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the circumstances, we remand the matter back to the file of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) for denovo disposal of the appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos.695 & 696/CHNY/2026

Since the facts and issues involved in the above captioned appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.694/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2017- 18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.695 & 696/CHNY/2026 for the A.Y.2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.695 & 696/CHNY/2026 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

To sum up, all the three appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th May, 2026.