SHAIKH ABID SHAIKH ZAHOOR L/H OF JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

ITA 620/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2011-124 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of non-compliance without considering the assessee's submission that the notices were sent to a wrong email address. The Tribunal acknowledged that the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 was 'jsshah_associates@rediffmail.com' and that the assessee claimed to have not received the notices due to this error. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The additions made by the AO were not adjudicated on merits by the ITAT in this order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shaik Abid Shaikh Zahoor (Legal heir of Jahur Kamruddin Bhisti), filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench 'B', challenging an order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC]. This order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee contended that the notices were sent to a wrong email address, preventing them from filing submissions. The assessee sought one more opportunity to present their case. The appeal also challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs. 14,73,109/-, Rs. 5,13,505/-, and Rs. 10,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on grounds of non-compliance with notices, thereby confirming additions made by the AO, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) was due to a reasonable cause, specifically that the notices were sent to a wrong email address ('jsshah_associates@rediffmail.com' as per Form No. 35). Consequently, the assessee could not file submissions before the CIT(A) and requested one more opportunity to present their case. The assessee also contended that the additions of Rs. 14,73,109/-, Rs. 5,13,505/-, and Rs. 10,000/- were not justified and should be deleted. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the dismissal of the appeal or the additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shaik Abid Shaikh Zahoor The Income Tax Officer, L/h of Jahur Kamruddin Bhisti, V Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. Shop No.71, Ajintha Road, s. New Sabji Mandi, Jalgaon – 425003. Maharashtra. PAN: AZUPS6315D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil S Pathak – AR Revenue by Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 06/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commssioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Act, dated 15.01.2025 for the A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the various notices issued by him and thereby erred in confirming the various additions made by the learned A.Ο.

2] The assessee submits that there was a reasonable cause on his part for the non-compliance to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, request for one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). 3] The assessee submits that he had not received the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and hence, there was non compliance on his part to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) as request for one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). 4] The assessee submits that the addition made of Rs. 14,73,109/- is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 5] The assessee submits that the addition made of Rs. 5,13,505/ is not justified on the facts of the case and the same may kindly be deleted. 6] The assessee submits that the addition of Rs. 10,000/- as an unexplained income is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 71 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

.” Submission of ld.AR :

2. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR took us through the paper book, page no.3 and 4 to demonstrate that the notice issued by ld.CIT(A) was sent to the wrong email address. The email address mention in Form No.35 is “jsshah_associates@rediffmail.com”. Ld.AR also submitted that hence, Assessee could not file submission before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR requested for one more opportunity. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessee “JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI” died on “20-10- 2022”. Mrs.JARINA BI JAHUR BHSITI was brought on record as Legal Heir of JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI. However, Mrs.JARINA BI JAHUR BHISTI died on “26-06-2024”. Ld.CIT(A) has passed order in the name of the deceased JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI on 15.01.2025, when Mr.JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI was already dead. Thus, ld.CIT(A) passed the order in the name of the deceased person. Ld.AR filed copies of the relevant Death Certificates.

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, ld.CIT(A) has passed the order dated 15.01.2025 in the name of deceased JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI. It is also observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. We have noted from the page number 3 and 4 of the paper book that notices issued by ld.CIT(A) were on incorrect email address.

4.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of the justice we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We direct the ld.CIT(A) to pass the order in the name Legal Heir of the deceased assessee JAHUR KAMRUDDIN BHISTI. The Legal Heir of the assessee shall file all the necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07 May, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →