Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. The assessee contended that notices were sent to a wrong email address, thus violating principles of natural justice.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, especially when notices were not served on the correct email address. The matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance when notices were not properly served on the assessee due to an incorrect email address, violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
144, 250, 80IBA, 234B, 234C, 251, 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2022-23 V.R.Sukhwani Projects, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.B-1205, s Circle-2, Pune Amar Business Zone, Baner, Pune – 411045 PAN: AAQFV3888H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Miss Sailee Gujarathi – AR Revenue by Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 09/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2022-23 dated 22.01.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2024. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
[A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Learned AO of Rs. 1,53,39,381/- towards the deduction claimed u/s 80IBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the appellant's project fulfills all the conditions to claim the deduction under section 801BA of the Act and is eligible for the deduction. Hence, the appellant requests your honour to delete the disallowance made of Rs 1,53,39,381/- and allow the deduction u/s BOIBA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT(A)-NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Learned AO of Rs. 1,53,39,381/- towards the deduction claimed u/s 801BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the appellant was not given an effective opportunity of being heard as all the hearing notices, communications and order u/s 250 of the Act were erroneously served on the erroneous email address, which was different from the email address provided in Form 35, on the income tax portal and while furnishing the Income tax returns. Hence, in view of violation of the principles of natural justice, the appellant requests your honour to quash the appellate order by CIT(A)-NFAC disallowing the claim of Rs 1,53,39,381/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming that interest to be levied under section 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,70,547/- and Rs. 59,803/- respectively and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly.
The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or raise any additional ground or grounds of appeal
or delete or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” Findings & Analysis :
2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Return of Income on 22.10.2022 for A.Y.2022-23. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, various notices were issued. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim under section 80IBA of Rs.1,53,39,381/-. Aggrieved by the 2 “6. Decision: 04-03-2024, 6.1 Appeal has been filed against the order u/s 144, dated passed by PNE-C-(53)(1). In pursuance of appeal, this office has issued notices dated 21.11.2024, 12.12.2024, 26.12.2024 and 07.01.2025 wherein the compliance dates were 25.11.2024, 17.12.2024, 03.01.2025 and 13.01.2025. 6.2 It can be seen that appellant has not furnished any reply nor has sought adjournment and has not given any factual or legal details to come to conclusion different from that of AO. 6.3 Even otherwise, it was for appellant to furnish cogent evidence in support of its grounds of appeal
. This has not been done. Onus cannot be cast on this office to be an adjudicator and also a lawyer for the appellant when appellant is itself lax and uninterested in pursuing of his own appeal.
7. As a result, the appeal is held to be without merit and the same is hence Dismissed.”
3. Thus, it can be observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. It has been submitted by the ld.AR that the CIT(A) issued notices on wrong email address. Ld.AR filed Affidavit of Mr.Vicky Sukhwani who is partner of the Assessee firm V.R.Sukhwani Projects. In the Affidavit Mr.Vicky Sukhwani has mentioned as under : “That the designated email address associated with the firm was accounts@sukhwanilifespaces.com as provided in Form 35 as well as on the income tax portal and also furnished by the appellant in the income tax returns. However, the email address on which the hearing notices and the order passed u/s 250 of the Act were issued was an old email id i.e sukhwaniacct@gmail.com” 3 4. We have perused the Form No.35 and noted that email address mentioned in the Form No.35 is accounts@sukhwanilifespaces.com. We have also perused the copies of the hearing notices issued by ld.CIT(A) and noted that it was not sent to the email address mentioned in Form No.35. Therefore, we agree with the pleading of the ld.AR that notices were not served on the assessee.
5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act.
Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to 4 [A] him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn.
Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.
5.1 Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and ld.CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution.
In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Condonation of Delay : There was a delay of 114 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the Affidavit filed by the partner and we are convinced that there was sufficient cause and reason for delay. Hence, the Delay is condoned. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 September, 2025.