Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 44.42 lakhs in bank accounts during FY 2011-12. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated, and the assessment was completed ex parte. The first appellate authority also dismissed the appeal ex parte without deciding on merits.
Held
The tribunal held that the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) was without issuing notice to the correct e-mail id, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without proper opportunity and notice to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69A, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 31.01.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward-4 (2), Amritsar, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, vide order dated 09.12.2019.
Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 408 (four hundred eight days). The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal order dated 31.01.2024 should have been appealed within 60 days but the said order has not been served or issued to the e-mail id of the assessee. 2.1 He submitted that the said order has not been served on the e-mail id i.e. har@psahuja.in mentioned in Form No. 35 but wrongly all the notices as well as order of CIT(A) were issued on the wrong e-mail id storagedsc@yahoo.com. He further stated that the counsel has never informed the assessee regarding the disposal of appeal by the ld. first appellate authority because none was at all aware of the same and neither the notices nor the order of the CIT(A) has been received by the assessee or his authorized counsel, and as such, he could not file the appeal in time before the tribunal. 2.2 Considering the circumstances and due to the reasons contained in the application filed, he prayed for condonation of delay. 2.3 The ld. DR objected to the said delay but considering the contents of the application, he left the same to the discretion of the bench. 2.4. We have heard the submissions of the assessee and the contents of the application and we find that the reason for the delay as put forth by the assessee is 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 not very convincing, but in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.5 However, we are also of the opinion that the negligence on the part of the assessee cannot be ruled out altogether, considering the fact that the delay is more than 400 days and it is difficult to assume that the portal has been left unseen for more than a year, and we consider it a fit case for imposition of a token cost of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) payable to “Prime Minister National Relief Fund”, within 15 days from the date of communication of this order (evidence to be submitted before JAO).
The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 but the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. first appellate authority has not decided the case on merits on the grounds contained in memorandum of appeal and has dismissed the appeal ex parte, without actual service of notice.
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.44.42 lakhs in his two bank accounts maintained with HDFC and Punjab & Sindh Bank a/c during the F.Y. 2011-12, and in absence of any response to various notices issued from the department against PAN:ACSPS7271F (which apparently relates to assessee), proceedings were initiated u/s 148 dated 30.03.2019 and the assessment has been completed ex parte on a total income of Rs.44.42 lakhs
The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed ex parte without any adjudication on merits in absence of any response to various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) in course of appellate proceedings.
The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without affording proper opportunity, notice being issued in wrong e- mail id. 6.1 The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and the cash deposit in bank is out of cash withdrawn, from bank itself and the appeal order passed without providing adequate opportunity and without going into the merits of the case, is legally not justified.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and we find that the ex parte order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) without issuing notice in correct e-mail id as per Form 35, tantamount to no opportunity to the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 8.1 As such, on the principles of natural justice, we remand the matter back to the file of the ld. first appellate authority, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 prove his case with necessary particulars and documentary evidences and we direct the assessee to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings. 8.2 The assessee will get reasonable opportunity of being heard. 8.3 Notice to be issued in e-mail id as per Form 35.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits.
All issues are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 06.04.2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963.