Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) confirming a penalty. The assessee contended that they had requested no email notices, but the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without hearing dates.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to issue a physical hearing notice by RPAD and then pass a fresh order on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified without providing proper hearing opportunities and adherence to communication preferences.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against ex-parte appellate order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] relating to the Asst. Year 2011-12.
The case of the assessee is that in Form No.35, it was specifically mentioned not to send notice via email. However, Vijaybhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– the Ld.CIT(A), passed a cryptic one paragraph order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Further the impugned order does not carry the dates of hearing given to the assessee. Thus, we hereby set-aside the ex-parte appellate order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to issue a physical hearing notice by RPAD to the assessee and then pass order on merits and in accordance with the provisions of Law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.