Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay, and the original assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte. The assessee claimed that notices were not sent to their correct email address, leading to non-compliance. The Revenue contended that the assessee had sufficient opportunities to comply.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause due to incorrect email service. On merits, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to ex-parte orders passed without proper service of notice. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
144, 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 17.01.2025for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act is invalid, bad in law and grossly in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. (a) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai erred in facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs. 49,97,050/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee and estimating the net profit @ 15% of gross receipts based on his own assumptions and surmises. (b) The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai failed to appreciate that the appellant had already offered net profit @ 4.66% of gross receipts and therefore ought not to have estimated net profit at higher rate of 15% which is not commensurate to her business of contracts relating to construction and maintenance of roads, rails, bridges, tunnels, ports, harbour, runways etc.
3.Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or drop all or any of the above grounds of appeal
.”
2. Rival submissions of both the parties and record perused. The learned authorised representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that impugned order was passed by ld. CIT(A) on 17.01.2025 and appeal before Tribunal was filed on 28.03.2025. Thus, there is delay of 10 days in filing appeal. The assessee has filed her affidavit in explaining the delay. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) furnished the e- mail address as of thekasliwal108@yahoo.com. However, no notice either of hearing of appeal or passing of impugned order was sent to assessee on such e-mail address. Rather the notices were sent on different e-mail i.e. thekasliwal1008@gmail.com. The assessee when checked on ITBA portal realised that appeal of assessee had already been dismissed. The assessee immediately took step to file appeal before this Tribunal. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Thus, delay in filing appeal may be condoned. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. On such notices were also sent on different e-mail id as explained while explaining the delay in filing appeal.
Thus, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in making compliance before lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit and matter may be restored to the file of assessing office for passing the order afresh.
He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance before lower authorities.
On the other hand, learned senior departmental representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue on the plea of condonation of delay submits that bench may take appropriate view on considering the affidavit filed by assessee. However, on merit of the case, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has not made any compliance either before ld. Assessing Officer or before ld. CIT(A). The assessee was given ample opportunity. The assessee does not deserve any further problems to contest case on merit.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the plea of condonation of delay. We find that while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee provided her e-mail as thekasliwal108@yahoo.com for the purpose of service of notice. However, on perusal of different screen shot of ITBA portal, we find that no such notice was sent by ld. CIT(A) on the e- mail provided on Form-35, rather notices were sent of different e-mail id i.e. thekasliwal1008@gmail.com. Thus, considering the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, we find that reasonable cause that impugned order was not served on assessee immediately on dismissing the appeal. The assessee realised about the dismissal of appeal when he checked ITBA portal. Thus, delay in filing the appal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case.
We find that assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte.
On perusal of various copies of screen shot furnished by ld. AR of the assessee, we find that notices were sent on different e-mail address i.e. thekasliwal1008@gmail.com by ld. AO as well as by ld. CIT(A). Thus, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the grounds of appeal raised by assessing officer are restored back to the file of assessing officer for passing 3 the order afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order, assessing officer was provided fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/05/2025.