BENIT & CO. ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1, MADURAI

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 12.01.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2017-18.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of ‘313’ days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. Having gone through the affidavit filed for condonation of delay, we find that there is reasonable cause for delay and therefore, we are inclined to condone the same and proceed to hear the appeal on merits.

The Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee because the assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices and hence, dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal. According to the Ld.AR, notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) went to the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee, therefore, the assessee wasn’t aware about such notices and hence, couldn’t respond to the notices and therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

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 Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order qua assessee, since he found that four (4) notices issued to the assessee hasn’t been responded to. So, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the view that in the absence of relevant documents to support the contentions against the impugned action of the AO was not sustainable. Therefore, he upheld the assessment order. Be that as it may, we find that the main plea of the assessee is that the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) went to the ‘SPAM’ account of e-mail ID of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was not aware of such notices and therefore couldn’t respond and therefore, assessee can’t be faulted for the technical glitches. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that there is violation of natural justice and hence, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits as contemplated by sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). The Ld.AR before us has undertaken to file requisite/relevant documents/written submissions along with case laws to substantiate its grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. The Ld AR brought to our notice the e-mail ID for correspondence i.e.,: