SUBBURAM ASHOK BALAJI,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without hearing the assessee and therefore, there is a violation of natural justice and therefore, according to him, impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous. At the same time, it was also brought to our notice that the assessment order has also been passed ex parte order qua assessee. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons why the assessee couldn’t appear before the AO/Ld.CIT(A). From the contents of which, it is understood that the notices alleged to have been issued to the assessee have not been served upon the assessee meaning, the notices got delivered into the ‘spam’ account of his e-mail account resulting in assessee not being aware of the existence of such notices, which prevented him from responding to the said notices. Therefore, he pleads that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), wherein their Lordships held that if the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO, then assessment should be returned to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. In the light of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO with a direction to frame de novo assessment subject to the assessee remitting Rs.10,000/- as cost which Subburam Ashok Balaji :: 3 ::

अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF