Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 225 days. The assessee argued that the impugned ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was passed without proper opportunity, as notices were sent to an incorrect email ID. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had fixed multiple hearing dates but the assessee did not respond.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email ID, and thus no fault could be attributed to the assessee for not responding. The impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when notices were sent to an incorrect email address, thereby denying the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
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 15.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2011-12.
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘225’ days in filing of this appeal and explained the reason for cause of delay. Having gone through the relevant facts which led to the delay, we find that there was sufficient cause for the cause of delay and hence, we condone the delay of ‘225’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that this is an ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, he prays for one more opportunity and in this regard, pointed out that even though the Ld.CIT(A) says that he has given six (6) opportunities to the assessee, but, the same was inadvertently sent to the wrong e-mail ID i.e. saikrishna5280@gmail.com, whereas, the correct e-mail ID of the assessee is info@srplasai.com and drew our attention to Page No.9 of the Paper Book to support this fact.
Therefore, he prays 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, but couldn’t controvert the fact about notices being sent to wrong email id as noted supra.
Having heard both the sides and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has fixed the hearing on six (6) occasions, but assessee didn’t respond to his notices, hence, he was pleased to dismiss the appeal without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. The Ld.AR explained the reason for not responding to the notices, and brought to our notice that the notices have been sent to an e-mail which was not provided in the return of income (RoI) or Form 35 etc., which resulted in the assessee not knowing about the existence of such notices, which we note to be correct.
1. Therefore, no fault can be attributed on the part of the assessee for not responding to the notices issued by him. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to issue notices to info@srplasia.com and thereafter, decide the appeal on merits as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) and the assessee is directed to file all the relevant documents/written submissions in support of grounds of appeal, and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. In this regard, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed which 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 Ld.CIT(A).
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 05th day of May, 2025, in Chennai.