MANPREET SINGH RANDHAWA,MALERKOTLA vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / AC / ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTYER

The Assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) of Rs. 35,00,000/- 2 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has submitted that the impugned order of Ld. CIT has been passed ex-parte of the assessee. Learned counsel for the Assessee has further invited my attention to the appeal Form No 35, placed at Page 39 of the Appeal file, wherein, email of the Assessee has been mentioned at which the notices can be sent. It is mentioned as “amarjitassociates@gmail.com.” Learned counsel for the Assessee has further submitted that no notices of hearing has ever been received from Ld. CIT(A) at the aforesaid email address. However, the perusal of the copy of the notices downloaded from the Income Tax e-filing portal reveals that the notices were sent on another email which was “rkjindalca@gmail.com”. This email admittedly has not been mentioned by the Assessee in the appeal Form No 35. Therefore, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) on the above-said email, did not come to the knowledge of the assessee resulting into the passing of ex-parte order of the CIT(A). It appears that non participation of the assessee in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT)A) was not intentional. In view of this, impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh.

Ld. CIT(A) will serve the notices of hearing on the email address as mentioned in the appeal Form No. 35 and will give 2 3 proper and adequate opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and thereafter, to decide the matter by way of passing a speaking order.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.