VENKATANARASIMHAN,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1 PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 303/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) passed a cryptic ex-parte order without considering the grounds of appeal. Since the assessee could not be faulted for non-receipt of notices due to them landing in the SPAM folder, a further opportunity was granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) on an ex-parte basis after issuing multiple notices. The assessee claimed these notices were not received in their inbox but went to the SPAM folder, leading to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order by the Ld.CIT(A) is valid when notices were not effectively served on the assessee due to technical reasons (SPAM folder)?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 24.03.2025Pronounced: 05.05.2025

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 “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 02.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order qua assessee. In this regard, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed a cryptic order by mentioning about giving four (4) opportunities to the assessee, and having found that the assessee didn’t reply, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this regard, the Ld.AR explained that the assessee didn’t receive the purported notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and later on found the same in the ‘SPAM’ account, because of which, the assessee wasn’t aware of such notice, and therefore, couldn’t comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and for such omission, the assessee pleaded that he can’t be faulted and requested for one more opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

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

4.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order qua assessee without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). The Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have issued notices to the assessee on four (4) occasions and finding no response from the assessee, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

1. In this regard, it has been brought to our notice that the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A), because, it didn’t come in the ‘Inbox’ of the assessee whereas it got delivered into the ‘SPAM’ account of the assessee. In such a scenario, the assessee can’t be faulted for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we need to give one more opportunity to the assessee to comply with the principles of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) and direct him to pass orders on merits in respect of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Having said so, we direct the Ld.AR of the assessee to file written submissions and relevant evidences in support of its grounds of appeal and be diligent in responding to the Ld.CIT(A) notices. With these observations, we dispose off the appeal.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 256

All 55 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →