ASTRO LEASING & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1404/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 March 2025AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-representation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted that they attempted to file details before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not due to technical glitches, and had intimated this to the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal without considering these submissions. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to a wrong email address by the Assessing Officer. Given these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required to be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal should not be dismissed for non-representation without a proper inquiry into the reasons for absence, especially when technical glitches or issues with communication are cited.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Astro Leasing & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee contended that they attempted to file details before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not due to technical glitches, which were intimated to the Ld. CIT(A). Despite this, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-representation. The assessee also submitted that they had not received notices from the Assessing Officer as they were sent to a wrong email address. The judgment includes a screenshot of the assessee's profile details from the e-filing portal, indicating their correct name and PAN.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-representation when the assessee faced technical difficulties in filing details and had intimated the same to the Ld. CIT(A)? (Question of fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the notices issued by the Assessing Officer were validly served, given that they were allegedly sent to a wrong email address? (Question of fact and law, turning on the validity of service of notice). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the dismissal of their appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-representation was erroneous because they had encountered technical issues while trying to submit details, which they had duly informed the Ld. CIT(A) about. They relied on the acknowledgment number for the intimation. The assessee also contended that notices from the Assessing Officer were not received because they were sent to an incorrect email address. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANAJY AWASTHI

Astro Leasing & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-7(1), 31. Shakespeare Sarani, 2nd Floor, Kolkata Vs Room 209-210, Jasmine Tower, Kolkaeta-700017. (PAN: AAECA6681L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA Respondent by : Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060049002(1) dated 24.01.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16.

2.

Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee had attempted to file the details before the Ld. CIT(A) and due to some technical glitches, which were also intimated to the Ld. CIT(A) vide Acknowledgment No. 401884671220322, the same could not be filed. It was the submission that still the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non- representation. It was also the submission that even before the Assessing Officer, notices have not been received by the assessee in so far as the notices have been sent to the wrong e-mail address. It was the submission that the correct e-mail address has also been, updated details of which reads as under:

4.

It was the submission that in the interest of justice the issues in this appeal could be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, where the assessee would be in a position to provide all the details.

5.

In reply, the Ld. CIT, DR did not raise any serious objection. It was the submission that the assessee should have been more careful.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions. It is noticed that the e-mails have been sent to the wrong e-mail address of the assessee. The correct e- mail address is available in the personal details as extracted above. Hence, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →