Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The assessee claimed that e-mails for hearings went to their spam folder, preventing them from attending proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case. In the interest of justice and natural justice, the cases were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the AO and CIT(A) were justified without considering the assessee's submissions and if the non-receipt of e-mail notices due to spam folder constitutes a valid reason for non-appearance.
Sections Cited
144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ & 407/CHD/2025 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jora Singh, The ITO, S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, बनाम Ward, Vill. Jodhpur (Barnala) Barnala Vs. (Rural 1), Barnala KTY, S.O.Barnala, Punjab 148101 �थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: GTUPS0945H अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) �नधा�रती क� ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज�व क� ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 उदघोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM: Captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders each dated 21.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.
409 & 410-Chd-2025 Jora Singh, Barnala 2
The Assessee has preferred identical grounds of appeal in both the captioned appeals. The sole issue raised in both the appeals is that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are ex-parte order and the Assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not attending the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A) as the e.mails for hearing sent by the Department have been oversighted by the authorized representative of the Assessee as they had gone in spam folder and, thus, the Assessee could not comply with.
3. At the very outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee pointed out that the assessment orders in both these cases have been passed u/s 144 read with section 144B of the I.T. Act, so, before passing the order, the Assessing Officer has not considered the detailed submissions of the Assessee.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the Assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but here also all the notices were sent by the CIT(A) on e.mail and as claimed by the Assessee, all notices / commutations went to the 409 & 410-Chd-2025 Jora Singh, Barnala 3 spam folder which the Assessee could not see, therefore, there was no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) also. As a result, the CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee requested that in the fitness of things, the matter may be remanded back to the AO for decision afresh.
Per Cotnra, Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the request of the Counsel of the Assessee and we find that in both the matters, the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte orders and similarly the Ld. CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte orders without giving any findings on merit on the basis of material available on record. Therefore, we are of this considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the AO. Accordingly, keeping in view the element of natural justice, these cases are remanded back to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The 409 & 410-Chd-2025 Jora Singh, Barnala 4 Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly. The appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 24.07.2025.