Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Mrs. Monika Ashok Wasdev, challenged an assessment order for A.Y. 2012-13 where Rs. 12,49,260/- cash deposits were added as unexplained money under Section 69A by the Assessing Officer after issuing a notice under Section 148. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's subsequent appeal ex-parte for non-compliance, as notices were sent to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from presenting her case. The assessee claimed the deposits were business receipts.
Held
The ITAT found that the principle of natural justice was violated because the CIT(A) issued notices to a wrong email ID not matching the one in Form No. 35. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order for de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish all details.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte appellate order and assessment order are sustainable when the CIT(A) failed to serve notices to the correct email address, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147, 148, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 19.02.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y.2012-13 dated 14.12.2019. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
“1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order ex-parte, in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 2. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,49,260/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was treated by him as the appellant’s Unexplained Money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, withdraw the Grounds of Appeal
.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) has passed an Ex-parte order without adjudicating grounds of appeal. Ld.AR submitted that none of the notices issued by ld.CIT(A) were received by assessee, hence, there was no compliance. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.6 of the paper book to demonstrate that ld.CIT(A) had issued notices at the email address “truelata@yahoo.com”. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form No.35 filed by Assessee, wherein the email address of the assessee mentioned is “bhaspune@gmail.com”. Therefore, ld.AR submitted that assessee could not file any reply. Hence, ld.AR requested that one more opportunity may be given to Assessee to file all the details before the ld.CIT(A). Submission of ld.DR :
3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, for A.Y.2012-13 on 28.03.2019. Subsequently, various notices were issued. The reason for issuing notice u/s.148 was, information regarding cash deposits of Rs.12,49,260/- in the Savings Bank Account of Bank of India, Wanwadi, Pune by the Assessee. Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assessing the total income at Rs.12,49,260/-.
4.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for non-compliance.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.
It is observed that ld.CIT(A) had issued the notices at the email address “truelata@yahoo.com”, whereas the email address mention in Form No.35 is “bhaspune@gmail.com”. Therefore, these notices were not received by Assessee. Hence, Assessee could not file the reply. Therefore, it is clear from the facts that principle of natural justice has been violated. It is also observed that Assessment Order was passed u/s.144 of the Act. In the paper book assessee has explained the source of cash deposits. According to the Assessee, these were business receipts. Assessee has specifically mentioned bill number, amounts, name of the person, date for these deposits in the submission. Assessee has filed an elaborate paper book before us, however, admittedly, some of these documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the Assessment Order for denovo adjudication to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.