MADAN MOHAN LALJINI HAVELI,BHAYAVADAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2121/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 March 2025Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that uploading notices on the ITBA portal is not proper service as per the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee's non-representation was not intentional. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing due opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(E) on 22.10.2024. The assessee contended that they were unaware of the hearing dates as notices were only uploaded on the ITBA portal and not served through physical mode or email.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(E) is valid when the assessee was not properly served with hearing notices?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.R
For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R

आदेश/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(E)’] dated 22.10.2024 u/s. 12AB/(I)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(E) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. The ld. Madan Mohan Laljini Haveli counsel for the assessee has further submitted that all the notices of hearings were allegedly served on ITBA Portal and that no notice of hearing was served to the assessee either through physical mode or even through email. He, therefore, has submitted that the assessee was not aware of the dates of hearing before the CIT(E) and the case of the assessee remained un-represented before the CIT(E) resulting into the impugned ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(E).

3.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the records. Uploading of notices on ITBA portal is not a proper service as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the non-representation of the assessee before the CIT(E) cannot be said to be intentional. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the CIT(E), is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(E) with a direction to pass the order afresh on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(E) will serve the notice of hearing upon assessee through physical mode and also through electronic mode. The assessee will also participate promptly in the hearing before the CIT(E) as and when so directed.

4.

With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-03-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member 2 Madan Mohan Laljini Haveli Ahmedabad : Dated 26 /03/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →