Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC was dismissed ex-parte after four hearing notices sent via e-mail. The assessee's counsel argued that the notices were not received as the assessee is uneducated and had specifically requested physical notices in Form 35, leading to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that notices were sent via e-mail and not in physical form. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) is justified when hearing notices are sent via e-mail despite the assessee claiming non-receipt due to being uneducated and having requested physical notices. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
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 order dated 27.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed ex-parte qua assessee. In response to four hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished its submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte qua assessee.
The ld.AR 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. The ld.AR further stated that the assessee did not check his e-mail as he is uneducated and in Form 35 also, the assessee had specifically mentioned that hearing notices should not be sent through e-mail. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority remained non-compliant since the hearing notices were never received in physical form to the assessee’s address. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case and prayed for restoring the issue raised in this appeal to the files of the CIT(A).
The ld.DR supported the order of the AO and the CIT(A).
5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices. It was the contention of the ld.AR that the assessee had not received the hearing notices sent from the office of the CIT(A) since the notices were sent through e-mail and not in physical form. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the CIT(A). 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 6th January, 2025 at Chennai.