MA AMDAR SHRI RADHAKRUSHNA VIKHE PATIL SAHAKAR TRUST VAHATUK SANSTHA MARYAD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 50/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC without proper opportunity of hearing. Notices were sent to the erstwhile tax consultant's email instead of the official one mentioned in Form No. 35.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A)/NFAC. Whether notices were correctly served on the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Hearing: 19.03.2025Pronounced: 28.03.2025

Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ma Amdar Shri Vs. Income Tax Department, Radhakrushna Vikhe Patil National e-Assessment Sahakar Trust Vahatuk Centre, Delhi. Sanstha Maryad, 1, AP Pravaranagar, Rahata, Ahmednagar- 413712. PAN : AAAAM6484F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 19.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM:

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 24.11.2023 pertaining to assessment year 2018-19.

2.

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even on previous date of hearing fixed on 24.02.2025 none appeared. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with Ld. Departmental Representative and available records.

3.

Our attention was drawn to ground no.1 wherein it has been stated that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity of hearing by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as the notices of hearing were issued on email ID of the erstwhile tax consultant and not on the official email ID mentioned in Form No.35.

4.

Ld. DR raised no objection if the matter is remanded back to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

5.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.11.2023, we note that the assessee could not plead its case by filing various details. Ground no.1 raised in the instant appeal also indicates that the notices of hearing were not sent on the email ID mentioned in the Form No.35 rather it was sent on the email ID of previous tax consultant appearing on the portal. For this reason, there was no proper opportunity given to the assessee to plead its case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. Reasonable opportunity of hearing to be given to assessee who shall also remain vigilant and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and should also update correct email and contact details on Income Tax Portal. Effective grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of March, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →