What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and some notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee's appeals were directed against the orders of the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that notices of hearing were sent to an incorrect email ID, preventing them from furnishing necessary documents and submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly issued notices of hearing to the assessee, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Sky Lux Cityspaces Private Limited vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 08.04.2025Pronounced: 22.05.2025

These bunch of four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] all dated 25/10/2023 for the Assessment Years (“AY”) 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 respectively.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that various notices of hearing issued by the Ld.CIT(A) could not be complied as they were sent to another e-mail ID and not on the e-mail ID mentioned in Form No.35. He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, all the issues on merits, may be pleased to restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), raised in A.Ys. 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18, so that assessee can furnish the 2 ITA.Nos.1471-1474/PUN./2024 (Sky Lux Cityspaces Pvt. Ltd.) relevant details/documentary evidences and written submissions in support of its grounds of appeal.

3. Ld.DR is fair enough not opposing to the prayer of the learned counsel for the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the material placed before us. We observe that the assessee which is a private limited company has been assessed for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 and against the additions made by the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). In Form No.35, the e-mail ID mentioned by the assessee is digheaj@gmail.com and the notices of hearing were required to be sent on this email ID. However, perusal of the impugned order indicates that various notices of hearing were sent by the Ld.CIT(A) on another email ID i.e. aniruddha_sheth@yahoo.com. Ld.DR failed to make any satisfactory submission as to how the Ld.CIT(A) sent the notices of hearing on the e-mail address which was not mentioned in Form No.35. It is also noticed that some of the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) fall during Covid-19 pandemic period.

Considering all the given facts and circumstances and that the notices of hearing were sent on the incorrect email ID, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to remit back all the issues raised by the assessee in the instant appeals for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017- 18 to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless

3 ITA.Nos.1471-1474/PUN./2024 (Sky Lux Cityspaces Pvt. Ltd.) otherwise required for reasonable cause and furnish all the details in support of grounds of appeal based on which the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. All the grounds of appeals to 1474/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.05.2025.

SKY LUX CITYSPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments