Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte appellate order. The assessee experienced a delay of 344 days in filing the appeal due to miscommunication via email regarding the same, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee's son, who managed the email, was unavailable due to work pressures.
Held
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order was passed without providing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte appellate order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of proper communication and opportunity to be heard to the assessee.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
Assessment Year 2017-18 Vinubhai Shankarbhai Income Tax Officer Brahmbhatt Ward-2(1)(4), Near Raghunathji Mandir Vs Vadodara Vansol, Taluka: Umreth-387115, Gujarat, India PAN: ACMPB4980G (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 08-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 11-04-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Vinubhai Shankarbhai Brahmbhatt vs. ITO
The registry has noted that there is a delay of 344 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee vide Notarized Affidavit stated that he has given his son email id for communication, however his son working in polishing raw diamond at Surat not noticed of the email notices issued due to pressure of work and oversight, hence could not file the appeal within time. Against the exparte order, when notice of recovery of tax demand was received in assessee’s Mobile number on 07-12-2024, assessee moved to file the present appeal, thereby the delay of 344 days. The delay is neither willful nor intentional and also filed assessee’s son’s Notarized Affidavit explaining the delay. We are satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and thereby the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the four notices sent to email id namely yogeshbarot8833@yahoo.com were not responded, thereby dismissed the appeal. This email address is nothing but that of the son of the assessee, where the delay in filing the appeal was condoned by this Tribunal. For the exparte appellate order also, the very same email miscommunication in the reason, therefore in the Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to file Ld. CIT(A) and to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the assessee should make use of this final opportunity and file all necessary details, documents before Ld. CIT(A) to pass order on merits.
A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 Vinubhai Shankarbhai Brahmbhatt vs. ITO
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11-04-2025