Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee claims they did not receive hearing notices as they were sent via email to an incorrect address. There was also a significant delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The case was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be restored to the file of the AO for fresh assessment when notices were allegedly not received by the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
250, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
Year: 2013-14 Karthikeyan, Income Tax Officer, No.1175, Mela Street, Vs. Ward-1, Sadaiyarkoil, Thanjavur. Thanjavur, Sadayarkoil B.O. Tamil Nadu-614 019. [PAN: ANUPK0210B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Eswaran, JCIT सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing : 21.01.2025 : 24.01.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057309596(1) dated 25.10.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2013-14. Through the aforesaid appeal the assesse has challenged order u/s 250 dated 25.10.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi.
Page - 1 - of 4 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 331 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse is not very familiar with the electronic functioning and therefore could not check the income tax portal or registered email. He came to know about the impugned order when the Ld. AO pursued recovery proceedings. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.
3.0 At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecuting the case. In response to notices of hearing issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished his submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non- prosecution without adjudicating the issue on merits.
Page - 2 - of 4 4.0 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee as the same was sent through e-mail, which was not taken note by the assessee. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case. 5.0 The ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6.0 We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee, as the same was sent through e-mail, on an email ID other than the one mentioned in Form-35. We have also noted that the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. AO compelling him to pass ex-parte orders u/s.
Be that as it may be, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case before the assessing office. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision Page - 3 - of 4 qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have also noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly the issues raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the Ld. AO for assessment de novo after giving necessary opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th , January-2025 at Chennai.