ANJALI HIMANSHU SANGHVI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(5), BANGALORE

In this case, vide assessment order dated 26.11.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act an addition of Rs.36,27,931/- has been made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of disallowance of the loss on sale of fixed assets and added to the total income of the Assessee.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities made no compliance and/or filed no submissions and documents. Thus, Ld. Commissioner, in the constrained circumstances affirmed the aforesaid addition by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee has claimed that the Assessee in form no.35 through has given email address as “rasolutions2011@gmail.com”, whereas the Ld. Commissioner issued the notices on the email “rasalutions2011@gmail.com” and therefore the Assessee never received the notice issued by the Ld. Commissioner, which resulted into non-compliance by the Assessee and therefore a lenient view may be taken and considering the peculiar fact that the assessment order is also an ex-parte, the case may be remanded to the file of the JAO for decision afresh.

On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee but not about the notices sent by the Ld. Commissioner at the email i.e. “rasalutions2011@gmail.com”.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, for just and proper decision of the case, equitable relief, fair play and substantial justice, and considering the peculiar fact that the assessment order is also an ex-parte, the case is remanded to the file of the JAO for decision afresh accordingly.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.