SWETANK MADHUVIR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in disposing the appeal ex-parte in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in disposing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case resulting in violation of S.250(6) of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law and without juri iction.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 2,56,27,833/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

Both the lower authorities have passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234 A/B/C/D of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

On going through the record, we find that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued via email by the Ld. CIT(A) on five occasions, resulting in the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Asst.Years : 2013-14 - 3– 4. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) via email. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee had specifically denied service of such notices by electronic means before the Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, the appeal was adjudicated ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that, given an opportunity, due compliance would be made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A); however, the Ld. DR objected it in principle. The Ld. DR argued that the notices have been duly issued to the e-mail address given in the Form 35, which is JINDAL1990@GMAIL.COM. Ld. AR argued that the next column of the e-mail address clearly mentioned “ whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail” for which the assessee mentioned “No”.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय  त न ध, आयकर अपील(य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड- फाईल / Guard file.