SUNITA BAGAI,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 947/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 947/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunita Bagai बनाम The ITO H.No. 87, Sector 7 Ward-4 Panchkula, Haryana Panchkula स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACCPB1319H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Aman Parti, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2025 आदेश/Order PER VI1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity as notices were sent to a wrong email ID. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, bringing to tax Rs. 26,90,000/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) sustained the order due to non-prosecution by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper service of notice on the assessee is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Aman Parti, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/01/2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2025 आदेश/Order

PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 08/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

In this case, briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dt. 03/12/2019 wherein an amount of Rs. 26,90,000/- has been brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee carried 2 the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since sustained the said order on account of non-prosecution.

3.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. It was submitted that the notices so issued by him were sent on wrong email ID and doesn’t belong to the assessee. It was accordingly submitted that the notices so issued were therefore not served on the assessee and the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not attending to the proceedings before CIT(A). It was submitted that assessee be allowed one last opportunity and the matter may be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh and it was submitted that the assessee shall attend to the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and file the necessary information/documentation.

5.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that various notices have been issued to the assessee but assessee has neither filed any reply to the said notices nor attend the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, the ld DR couldn’t controvert the submissions of the assessee that the notices so issued were sent on email id which doesn’t belong to the assessee and more so, not specified by the assessee in Form 35 for necessary communication.

6.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on the record, I find that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and cannot be condemned unheard and therefore, keeping in view principles of substantial justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

7.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →