Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Bethany Navajeevan Trust, appealed against an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices, which the assessee claimed were delivered to the auditor's spam email account and thus not responded to. The AO had re-opened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 52,52,930.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for non-response, noting that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh disposal on merits, directing the assessee to be diligent.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance when the assessee claimed notices went to spam, and whether the appeal should be restored for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee Trust against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 06.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2013-14.
None appeared for the assessee. At the outset, we note from a perusal of the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) that it is an ex-parte (AY 2013-14) Bethany Navajeevan Trust :: 2 ::
order qua assessee i.e. without going into the merits of the grounds raised before him, and notes that there is violation of natural justice, so one more opportunity needs to be granted to the assessee for pursuing its appeal before the First Appellate Authority. However, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.
Having heard the Ld.DR, and after perusal of the material available on record, we note that the assessee is a Trust and the AO is noted to have re-opened the assessment for AY 2013-14 and passed an assessment order on 29.03.2022 by making an addition of Rs.52,52,930/.
On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte noticing that the assessee didn’t comply to his four (4) notices issued on four (4) occasions, out of which, three (3) notices are noted to have been issued during October, 2024. From the statement of facts and grounds raised before us, the assessee is noted to have stated the reason for not responding the notices. According to the assessee, it was not aware about the notices, and was literally in the dark about such notices because the notices got delivered in the SPAM e-mail account of Auditor and therefore, it couldn’t be responded, and the omission to respond, resulted in dismissal of the appeal. Having noted the reason for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A), which is quite plausible, and since assessee doesn’t gain from not responding to the notices of Ld CIT(A), and the omission of assessee in this regard, can’t be (AY 2013-14) Bethany Navajeevan Trust termed as deliberate, we are of the view that assessee shouldn’t be penalized for non-compliance to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) which were admittedly issued within a short span of ‘40’ days. In the light of the discussion, we accept the explanation given by the assessee for not responding to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) and further, finds that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the grounds of appeal according to sub- section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘); 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 reasoned order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The assessee is directed to be diligent, appear/file its written submissions and other relevant documents in support of its grounds of appeal. And the Ld.CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.