Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by the CIT(A)/NFAC, sustaining an addition of Rs.31,36,649/-. This was the second round of litigation, with a previous appeal set aside by the Tribunal. The current appeal was filed with a delay of 170 days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It noted that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and while the Assessing Officer and CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, given that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to ex-parte orders.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144, 142(1), 254, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA
Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department by : Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT (through virtual) Date of hearing : 22-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 23-09-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 11.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2010-11.
There is a delay of 170 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.31,36,649/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases.
This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and the proprietor of M/s. Regent Steel. He filed his return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.4,69,090/-. On the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.31,36,649/-, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 16.02.2015 at a total income of Rs.36,05,739/- after disallowing bogus purchases of Rs.31,36,649/- in absence of any evidence furnished by the assessee. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 142(1) on 16.03.2020 asking the assessee to furnish all the relevant documents, details and supporting evidences in support of his claim fixing the case for hearing on 22.03.2022. However, in absence of any reply from the assessee on the said date or subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 29.03.2022 by making the addition of Rs.31,36,649/-.
Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has given a very short time to the assessee to furnish the details. Further, the notice was sent on a different e-mail id other than the e-mail id given by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee responded to the first notice issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC out of 3 notices. Since the remaining 2 notices were sent on a different e-mail id other than the e-mail id given in Form No.35, therefore, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. She submitted that this is the second round of litigation and despite opportunities granted by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee never bothered to make any submission. Therefore, under these circumstances, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.
I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has issued only one notice that too on 16.03.2022 fixing the case for hearing on 22.03.2022 and passed the order on 29.03.2022. Similarly, a perusal of notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that the same were issued on a different e-mail id nsghodkepimpri@gmail.com as against the e-mail id given in Form No.35 which is regentsteel2016@gmail.com. I, therefore, find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding the non-appearance before either of the authorities below. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd September, 2025.