ARUNA CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 29.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte order qua assessee, and he also brought to our notice that the AO has also passed an ex parte order albeit in the caption he has written it to have been passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). On a query from the Bench as to the reason why it didn’t participate in the proceedings before both authorities, the assessee gave reasons which we will discuss (infra), and submitted that assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), he pleads that assessment be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order is an ex parte order qua assessee because assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t receive such notices due to certain glitches in the internet and the notices happened to get dropped in the ‘spam’ account instead of the e-mail account of the assessee. Be that as it may, the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was without hearing the assessee, for the interest of justice and fair play, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A). Having said so, we note that the AO has passed the assessment without hearing the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the assessee didn’t receive any notices from the AO, because of which, he couldn’t participate in the assessment proceedings. Therefore, relying the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment and the assessee is directed to be diligent to file all relevant documents to substantiate its claim and the AO to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.