MAHESH BALKRISHNA MANUDHANE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 997/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT agreed with the assessee that a proper opportunity was denied due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an assessment order for A.Y. 2017-18, which was upheld by the ld.CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits and without providing proper opportunity, as four out of five notices were sent to an incorrect email ID not specified in Form No. 35.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-compliance when notices for hearing were sent to an incorrect email address, thereby denying the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak – AR
For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 05/06/2025Pronounced: 05/06/2025

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an 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 A.Y,.2017-18 on 18.02.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order u/s.144 of the Act, dated 19.12.2019.

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. In this case, ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that though ld.CIT(A) had issued five(05) notices, but only one notice dated 05.02.2025 was received by Assessee as the said notice was sent on the Email Id mentioned in Form No.35. Assessee in replying to the said notice, requested for an adjournment. However, without granting any adjournment ld.CIT(A) passed the order. Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed the merits of case and merely dismissed the appeal.

2.1 We have perused the order of ld.CIT(A) and the paper book filed by the Assessee and noticed that the first four notices were sent on different Email Id, which was not mentioned in the Form No.35. Therefore, we agree with the Assessee that he had not given opportunity. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set- aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication to decide the appeal on merits. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05 June, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →