Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) which was passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee. The assessee claimed that notices were not properly served and went into the spam folder of their email, leading to unawareness.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order is bad in law due to violation of natural justice and non-service of notices. Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity for de novo assessment.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 26.06.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘) 2016-17.
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 (AY 2016-17) Subburam Ashok Balaji the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and then, the AO to frame the de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 18th day of June, 2025, in Chennai.