Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were directed against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee's counsel submitted that notices of hearing were sent to an incorrect email ID, hindering compliance. The Ld.DR did not oppose this submission.
Held
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and the Ld.DR could not provide a satisfactory explanation. Considering this and the fact that some notices were during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was prevented from presenting their case due to notices of hearing being sent to an incorrect email address, necessitating a remand.
Sections Cited
250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
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.