Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to alleged non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee contended that the notices were sent to an incorrect business email ID not regularly used, instead of the one mentioned in Form 35, leading to the appeal going unnoticed. The original assessment was completed u/s 144 with various additions, including unexplained money u/s 69A.
Held
The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for non-compliance, acknowledging that notices were sent to the wrong email ID. It remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be vigilant, update contact details, and cooperate with the proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID was justified, and if the matter should be remitted back for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 69A, 115BBE, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.01.2025 which in turn is arising out of order u/s 143(3) dated 12.12.2019.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. The Hon CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for non- compliance to appeal notices, which action being not justified by facts and by in law may kindly be over turned and set aside and the appeal be decided on the merits of the case.
2. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged non- compliance to hearing notices, without deciding the appeal on the merits and for this reason also the order of the Hon. CIT(A) is bad-in-law and is required to be set aside.
3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.20,89,300/- made by the Id AO, as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, by holding the cash deposited in the bank account of the appellant during demonetization period to the unexplained, ignoring that such deposits represented sale value of telecom coupons, income wherefrom is credited to the profit and loss account and offered to tax and therefore the addition is uncalled for and bears to be deleted.
4. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.20,89,300/- made by the Id AO u/s 69A of the 1.T Act, 1961, not appreciating that the provisions of section 69A dealing with unexplained money were not attracted to the facts of the matter and therefore the addition was also legally incorrect and bears deletion on that account. 5. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 13,80,984/- made by the Id AO as business income, estimating profit @10% (net of declared income) in respect of other bank deposits during other than demonetization period, not appreciating that such deposits were as per books of accounts of the appellant, ou the basis of which Income Tax Return for the year under appeal was filed and therefore the addition of Rs. 13,80,984/- was not justified and bears to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the grounds of appeal at any time before the decision of the appeal.
3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee submitted that the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC were not sent on the e- mail id mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. joseph joy.svo@gmail.com but instead were sent on another e-mail id omrudratelecom@yahoo.in which is a business e-mail id which is not used regularly and may be notice were received in spam folder. She further submitted that since Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits the same may be remitted back to Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. DR is fair enough for not opposing the request of Ld. Counsel of the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that case of the assessee, who is an individual was selected for scrutiny and assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 was completed on 12.12.2019 u/s 144 of the Act after making various additions, assessing the income at Rs. 37,81,648/- The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the employee address was mentioned in Form 35 but it is alleged that Ld. CIT(A) has not sent the notices on e-mail id mentioned in Form 35 but sent them on the e-mail id mentioned on the Income Tax Portal. Since the counsel who was looking after the appeal work and whose e-mail id was given on Form 35 the notice of hearing given by NFAC went unnoticed and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed for non compliance. Considering the reasonable cause of notice sent on the wrong e-mail id, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to be carried out in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT(C) Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (huf) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) and pass a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to furnish necessary details for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee and if deemed appropriate Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report from the AO for the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and also to update the correct e-mail address and contact details on the ITBA portal. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025.