Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal because the assessee remained reticent and did not respond to notices. The original assessment order was also passed ex-parte by the Assessing Officer after multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve notices on the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal observed that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed their orders ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh order to be passed on a de novo basis.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities passed orders without adhering to principles of natural justice by failing to properly serve notices on the assessee.
Sections Cited
253, 1961, 250, 144, 147, 148, 142(1), 143(1), 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’ for sake of convenience and ease]. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066160141(1) dated 27.06.2024 which is passed u/s 250 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12 and the corresponding previous year period is from 1.4.2010 to 982-Chd-2024 Harinder Kaur, Patiala 2 31.03.2011. Delay of filing present appeal is condoned for which sufficient cause is shown. Appeal then taken up for hearing.
Factual Matrix 2.1 That by an assessment order dated 30.11.2018, income of the Assessee was computed of Rs. 22,79,250.00 in terms of section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer gave several opportunities to the Assessee but the same were not availed by the Assessee. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 30.03.2018. Notice u/s 142 (1) dated 12.07.2018 was too issued. Assessee remained non- compliant. Further Notice (s) were issued on 4.9.2018 and 10.09.2018 by speed post but same were returned back undelivered. Notice dated 18.10.2018 u/s 143(1) was also sent on new address [ as per PAN data base] which too was received back as undelivered. Notice dated 31.10.2018 u/s 142(1) of the Act was also sent at new address ( gathered from bank statement ) which too was received back undelivered. Thereafter, also notices were sent on 16.11.2018 u/s 144 of the Act along with Notice u/s 142(1) which too remained not delivered. In these circumstances the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.11.2018 came to be passed u/s 144 of the Act.
982-Chd-2024 Harinder Kaur, Patiala 3 2.2 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order dated 3011.2018 preferred first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on Ground that “after filing the appeal, the appellant has remained reticent and has not responded to any of the notices issued posting the case for hearing over last 3 years…”. In brief even the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte.
2.3 That the Assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed the appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal, which are as under:-
1. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and against facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) is erred in passing the order without granting the proper opportunity as the notices were not issued/served on address as mentioned in form No.35.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) is erred in issuance of the notices on portal/email, which was specifically barred by the assessee in form no.35.
4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (s) is erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer, wherein he assumed the jurisdiction and initiated the proceedings u/s 147 on the wrong premises.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(s) is not justified in confirming the order of the assessing
982-Chd-2024 Harinder Kaur, Patiala 4 officer which was passed without the service of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, which is sine quo non.
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(s) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1500000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the ground (s) of appeal before it is finally heard.
Record of hearing 3.1 The hearing in the mater took place before the Tribunal on 23.01.2025 when both ld. AR and ld. DR appeared and were heard for some time on their respective contentions. The ld. AR contended that no notice was served upon the Assessee as per e-mail address provided in form 35 which was SONU.SAILWAN@GMAIL.COM. The ld. DR, however, has not controverted this fact effectively before us. The ld. DR has finally left it to this Tribunal to pass appropriate order according to law.
Observations, findings and Conclusions 4. 4.1 We have perused the records of the case and we notice that both the orders of the lower authorities i.e. of ld. Assessing Officer and of ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte and in breach of principles of natural justice.