Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring 'nil' income for AY 2016-17. The AO completed assessment at Rs.36,41,156/- by disbelieving claimed agricultural income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal found that hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address, justifying the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when hearing notices were not properly served, and whether the AO considered all evidence regarding agricultural income.
Sections Cited
143(2), 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)/NFAC’s order dated 12.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return was filed by the assessee on 31.03.2018 admitting total income as ‘nil’. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.08.2018. The assessment was completed vide order dated 13.12.2018 u/s.143(3) of the Act by assessing total income at Rs.36,41,156/-. The AO in the assessment completed, disbelieved part of agricultural income claimed in the return of income. The AO added the same as ‘income from other sources’.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecuting the case, since the assessee did not respond to the hearing notice issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR submitted that the e-mail ID given in Form 35 is that of the assessee company namely ‘csrajtv@gmail.com’ whereas hearing notices has been sent from the office of the First Appellate Authority to the e-mail ID of ‘cadharmaraj@gmail.com’. The assessee has placed on record, a copy of the notice / letter sent from the office of the FAA. The ld.AR submitted though the assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, the AO has not taken into consideration the details submitted to prove the source of agricultural income. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee company has got substantial agricultural holding and has also furnished details of the persons to whom the agricultural produce has been sold and amounts received from them. It was submitted that the AO while completing the assessment has not taken into consideration the submissions/ evidences furnished by the assessee and so, in the interest of justice and equity, the matter may be restored to the files of the AO.
The ld.DR supported the orders of the AO & CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution of the case. We find from the hearing notices issued from the office of the FAA, it has been sent to the e- mail address not mentioned in Form No.35. Therefore, there is justification for non-appearance before the FAA. We find from AO. However the same was not been taken note in the assessment order completed u/s.143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore the matter to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2025 at Chennai.