Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 for AY 2019-20 to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that the non-compliance was a bona fide error resulting from an incorrect email ID provided in Form No. 35 and non-receipt of physical notices at the correct postal address.
Held
The Tribunal found that the non-compliance was due to a bona fide error and miscommunication, not deliberate disregard. It held that the assessee should not be denied an opportunity of being heard on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with directions for the assessee to cooperate fully and comply with all notices.
Key Issues
Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with notices; whether non-compliance was a bona fide error justifying remand for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Smt. Venkata Leela Bhavani Nimmagadda (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 18.02.2025 for the A.Y. 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer [“Ld. AO”] under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 21.03.2022. However, during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. Aggerieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was neither deliberate nor intentional, and occurred due to a technical communication lapse. It was pointed out that in Form no.35, the email ID provided was inadvertently mentioned as an older e-mail ID, which was not in use at the relevant time. Further, at para no.17 of Form no.35, the address for service of notice was correctly mentioned, but no notices were served at that address. As a result, the assessee remained unaware of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and could not comply. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee stands to gain nothing by avoiding compliance, and that the appeal was not dismissed on merits. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) so that the assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity to furnish submissions and supporting documents, and the matter may be decided on merits.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the request of remand and submitted that, adequate opportunities had already been provided by the Ld. CIT(A), which the assessee failed to utilise. It was contended by the Ld. DR that, the failure to respond to statutory notices should not be condoned lightly, and the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld.
We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. It is not in dispute that the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-compliance with notices issued during the course of the appellate proceedings. From the submission of the Ld. AR and perusal of the appeal memo in Form no.35, it is noted that, the e-mail ID provided by the assessee for communication was not in regular use and therefore, the assessee may not have received the notices issued electronically. Furthermore, at para no. 17, the postal address for service of notice was correctly given, but the assessee has submitted that no physical notice was served at that address. In these circumstances, we are inclined to accept that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) was due to a bona fide error and miscommunication, rather than deliberate disregard. The assessee cannot be denied the opportunity of being heard on merits due to such a lapse, particularly when no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the matter is remanded. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. At the same time, the assessee is directed to co-operate fully with the appellate proceedings and to strictly comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), without seeking any unwarranted adjournments. The assessee shall also have liberty to file additional evidences or documents, if necessary, in support of its claim.
6.1 In view of the above discussion, the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and permitting filing of additional submissions and supporting evidence. The assessee is also directed to ensure compliance with all notices and avoid any further delay.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.