Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC without a hearing, on the grounds that the assessee failed to appear. The assessee claimed they opted out of email communication for notices and did not receive any postal notice, leading to their absence.
Held
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate in the interest of justice to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 20/05/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 26/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with 144/144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought not to have rejected the appeal by an ex- party order on the basis of notices uploaded in e-filing portal, when
the appellant specifically had sought notices to be served by the POST in the column provided in appeal memorandum in Form 35 and no postal notice is served.
The appellant submits the request made was on account that the partner will be moving very frequently from the place of business for project works and the facility to operate the e-filing portal will not be available at all places.
The learned CIT(A)/NFAC, having passed an order ex-party, ought to have decided the appeal on materials furnished along with the appeal memorandum and which are explained in the statement of facts.
4. The order of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC not in accordance with the law and is opposed to principles of natural justice.
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A of the Act.
6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act.
7. The learned CIT ought to have directed the Assessing Authority to consider the self assessment tax of Rs.5,79,200/- paid.
3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee appearing before us submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed by Learned CIT(A) since the Assessee had failed to make any representation. It was submitted that the default was on account of the fact that the notice of hearing were sent over email. The Assessee had specifically opted out of communication of notice over email in memorandum of appeal in Form No. 35 filed before the Learned CIT(A). Since no notices were received by the Assessee, the hearings before the Learned CIT(A) went unattended and the appeal was dismissed. The Learned Authorised Representative requested for another opportunity to make out a case on merits before the learned CIT(A).
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee had been non-compliant in the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and thus, the Assessee had failed to make use of the opportunities granted to Page 2 of 4
make proper representation. Therefore, order passed by the Learned CIT(A) be sustained.
In rejoinder the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the relevant documents/details have already been filed before this Tribunal and the same are placed at pages 27 to 53 of the appeal set. It was submitted that the non- compliance by the Assessee before the authorities below was not deliberate and therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that Assessing Officer had made addition of INR.2,75,00,000/- in the hands of the Assessee observing that the Assessee had failed to provide/prove the source of the aforesaid payment made for purchase of immovable property. We note that during the assessment proceedings the Assessee had filed e- response (vide Acknowledgement No.419764521 240322) placing on the assessment record the Form 26AS, Bank Statement and some documents related to investment made in properties. It was explained that the source of funds utilized for the purchase of the immovable property were sale consideration received by the Assessee from sale of site after development. Further, we note that while instituting appeal before the Learned CIT(A) on 03/05/2022, the Assessee had again filed relevant documents and details vide Acknowledgement Number : 349219921 140322. On perusal of Form 35 we find that the Assessee had opted out of service of notice/communication over email. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case before the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the Order, dated 20/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the ground raised by the Assessee
Page 3 of 4 in the appeal before the Leaned CIT(A) afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Learned CIT(A) shall take into consideration the material already forming part of the assessment record and the record of the Learned CIT(A). The Assessee would be at liberty to raise all the rights and contentions of the Assessee as the same are left open.
The Assessee is directed for update the correct email address on the ITBA portal and on the records of the Learned CIT(A). The Assessee is also directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal.
In terms of the above, Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee is treated as allowed while all other ground raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage since we have remanded the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and therefore, dismissed.
In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 28.11.2025.