Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. The primary argument was a violation of natural justice as notices were sent to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from filing submissions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed requested notices to be sent to a specific email, and subsequent notices were sent to a different address. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether principles of natural justice were violated due to improper service of notices on the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A)?
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE
ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders both dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Delhi, relevant to assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively.
In both the appeals, the common argument of the Ld. AR for the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to pass impugned order under section 250, in complete violations of principles of natural justice in view of the admitted fact that assessee in Form No. 35 categorically requested to serve the notices on the email id i.e., camanojgupta30@gmail.com whereas only first notice was served in response to which written submissions were filed by the appellant on 23.11.2021 but all further notices referred in para 4 of the impugned order, after 23.11.2021 were issued at another mail id. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that on verification caused at the e-portal of revenue, it is found that that all the notices were issued at different mail i.e. i.e., eitr1314@gmail.com, as a result, assessee could not make compliance of the same. Hence, he requested to give one more opportunity to canvass his case before the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals.
Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below, but he could not controvert the contentions argued by the Ld. AR, as aforesaid.
We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding both the appeals vide para no. 4 in his separate orders has observed the following:- “4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided various opportunities vide notices dated 03.11.2022, 24.04.2023, 17.05.2023, 17.07.2023, 28.08.2023, 27.09.2023, 09.05.2025 and 01.07.2025 to submit written arguments / material in support of appeal filed by it, but not compliance was made by the appellant against notices issued from time to time.”
After perusing the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), it shows that various opportunities were given to the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A), but after hearing the Ld. AR’s contention as stated above in para 2 above of this order, it is abundantly clear that assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) while filing the Form No. 35 categorically requested to serve the notices on the mail id i.e., 2 | P a g e camanojgupta30@gmail.com whereas only first notice was served in response to which written submissions were filed by the assessee on 23.11.2021 but all further notices referred in para 4 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals, after 23.11.2021 were issued at another mail id i.e., eitr1314@gmail.com, hence, assessee’s could not canvass his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals. Also Ld. DR could not controvert the above fact situation, as argued by the Ld. AR, as aforesaid. 5.1 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in both the appeals, for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed through the Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the proceedings and canvass his case properly.
5.2 Further, during the hearing, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that against the Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi Order dated 23.12.2019 in appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 35/10034/2019-20, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench, ‘B’, Delhi vide its order dated 02.02.2023 in assessee’s own case in (AY 2011-12) has remitted back the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi for fresh adjudication, which is still pending for disposal with the Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi, hence, it is requested to direct the Ld. CIT(A)-24, Delhi to club the said appeal relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which is still pending with Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi, with the instant appeals relevant
3 | P a g e to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and disposed of all together. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.
5.3 After hearing the parties and perusing the records, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Ld. CIT(A)-24, Delhi to club the appeal relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which is pending with Ld. CIT(A)-35, Delhi, with the instant appeals relevant to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 and disposed of all together, as per directions given by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.03.2026.