Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income and was selected for scrutiny. The AO made additions based on differences in cash in hand and disallowed interest. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal found that the wrong email ID was provided in Form 35, leading to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO despite non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to an email discrepancy, and if so, on what conditions.
Sections Cited
143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 27/02/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31/03/2017. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2), 142(1) were issued. The assessee also furnished the computation of income, financial statements and cash book. The AO based on the difference between the cash in hand reported in the return of income and the financial statements and the cash book, had directed the assessee to provide the consolidated financial statements and reconciliation for the said differences. Similarly, the AO had issued a notice about the interest debited from M/s. Indiabulls. The AO not satisfied with the explanations had made the addition of Rs. 31,77,017/- being the difference between the cash in hand reported in the return of income and the financial statements and the interest amount disallowed of Rs. 8,09,613/-. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee also contended that the order of the AO is not correct and explained that he is having several branches and having a consolidated financial statements which are also audited and therefore the addition made by the AO is not correct. The Ld.CIT(A) had also issued four hearing notices but the assessee had not appeared to the said notices and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the said appeal.
As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the email ID given in form 35 is of the employee and he has not brought to the notice of the assessee about the hearing notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR further submitted that in form no. 36, the assessee’s correct email ID is given and submitted that all the details are available with the assessee and prayed an opportunity to submit the same before the AO.
The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
We have also perused the form no. 35 in which the assessee had mentioned the email ID as varshaassociates@gmail.com which relates to the employee of the assessee. Whereas in the form 36, assessee’s email ID is given as rajusv@vabc4d.in. Even though the assessee had submitted that the notices were sent to the employee’s email ID, the Ld.CIT(A) has no other ID mentioned in form 35. Therefore the non-appearance could also be attributed to the carelessness of the assessee. Even before the AO, the assessee had furnished some details but not filed the entire details. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to put forth his case before the AO but on condition that the assessee should pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department and produce the receipt before the AO. Thereafter, the AO is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass a speaking order, after hearing the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2025.