HARWINDER SINGH,SANGRUR vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, SANGRUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the delay and the assessee's submission regarding non-receipt of notices due to a wrong email ID, supported by an affidavit. While acknowledging the findings of the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee claimed that notices and hearing dates were sent to an incorrect email ID, leading to their non-appearance. The appeal was filed after a delay of 294 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) is valid when the assessee did not receive proper notice, and whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SH. SANJAY GARG
ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT (Appeals)] pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year.
The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal : 1. The order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is bad in law and against the facts of the case.
ITA 414/CHD/2025 2 2. That the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is not justified in deciding the case exparte as the notices did not come into the knowledge of the assessee which was sent on email and no other mode of service was pressed.
3. That the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is erred in deciding the matter exparte merely on account of non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case.
4. That the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order finalized by the Ld. A.O., wherein he was erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
5. That the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is not justified in confirming the re-opening the assessment, wherein the approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 was accorded by the competent authority in a very casual and mechanical manner.
6. That the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai is not justified in upholding the addition aggregating to Rs. 1483000/- in treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.
That the assessee craves, leave, to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal before it is finally heard.
As per the report of the Registry, the appeal is time barred by 294 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the assessee did not come to know about the notices/date of hearing before the ld.CIT (Appeals). It has been pleaded that the CIT (Appeals) sent the notices of hearing at wrong e-mail Id, therefore, the intimation of fixation of appeal did not come into the notice of the assessee. No service of notices through
ITA 414/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 3 physical mode was made. The assessee, thus, was not aware of the dates of hearing before the CIT (Appeals) resulting into an ex-parte order of the CIT (Appeals). The assessee has also filed an affidavit to this effect. The assessee has submitted that due to certain unavoidable circumstances, assessee could not present his case before the AO also, and therefore, the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld. AO.
The ld. DR, on the other hand has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
Considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that interest of justice will be well served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the AO, however subject to payment of a reasonable cost which I assess at Rs.5000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister Relief Fund. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh, but subject to the condition that the assessee will deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund and furnish the evidence/receipt of such deposit before the AO.
ITA 414/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2012-13 4
With the above observations, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
