Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the assessment order passed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's primary grievance was that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, and their adjournment requests were not considered, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in violation of natural justice principles by not properly considering the assessee's submissions and adjournment requests due to notices being sent to the wrong email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's objections regarding incorrect email communication and denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 69, 271(1)(c), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’A” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 482/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 cuke The ITO M/s. Prerna Realpromoters Pvt. Ltd. 10, Akshat Apartment, D-235, Bihari Marg Vs. Ward-1 (2) Banipark, Jaipur – 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCP 0207A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Ms. Prabha Rana, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 09/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: : 15/07/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28-02-2025 [hereinafter referred as “(CIT(A)/NFAC” ] for the assessment years 2013-14. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of assessment passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ for short AO ]as per section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act].
PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 2. In the present the appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in passing the order with non application of mind. The assessee always submitted the response on IT portal for notices / letter posted on the portal and requested to grant adjournment. The Id. CIT appeal NFAC had not considered the request for adjournment submitted on IT portal and held that the appellant has never responded and filed any written submission in support of its grounds of appeal." Whereas the fact is that the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC had sent various notices on the IT portal & the Assessee always responded to every notice served on IT Portal. Your honour the Assessee provided the Email Address in Form 35 prernaintl1@gmail.com whereas the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC mentioned that various Hearing notices through email to shelumaheshwari@gmail.com on various dates. Email Address shelumaheshwari@gmail.com is not related to the Assessee.
2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the plea of the Assessment made by AO as framed u/s. 147 read with section 1448 of the Act being bad in law and facts.
3. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the action taken by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 147 read with section 1448 of the Act with a view to make protective assessments being illegal and bad in law and facts.
4. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the action taken by the AO of passing the protective Assessment as framed u/s.147 read with section 1448 of the Act is bad in law and facts, as such action was void ah initio since legality and validity of the proceedings initiated under Section 147 on the ground that reasons to believe' did not exist.
5. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the action taken by the AD of initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act for the reasons based on mere suspicion. The entire exercise is only contingent and on the basis ofabove assessment proceedings u/s 147 is not justified.
6. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the action taken by the AO of initiating proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act for the reasons based on mere suspicion. The entire exercise is only contingent and on the basis ofabove assessment proceedings u/s 148 is not justified.
PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 7. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the addition made by the AO of Rs. 61,85,490/-being bad in law and facts. The addition made by A.O. is based on conjectures and surmises and is not justified.
On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in not upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income being bad in law and facts.’’
Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’7.0 In view of the discussion as above and facts of the case, it seems that the appellant has nothing to add in this matter, despite getting two (02) opportunities. The appellant has only filed an appeal in the form No.35. It is seen that appellant has not able to explain payment of on-money of Rs.61,85,490/- in immovable property transaction even though two sets of agreements were found for the same property. The appellant has not filed any written submission/document with respect to ground raised in form-35. In the given circumstances and paucity of any evidence supporting the appellant's ground of appeal, it is difficult to take a view on merits against the Assessment order passed by the AO.
7.1 Therefore, it is held that no interference is required to the impugned addition made by the AO. The grounds of appeals are therefore dismissed and the Assessment order is upheld.
In the result, for statistical purposes, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.’’ 8.
During the course of hearing, the main thrust of the ld.AR of the assessee is that the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) were not received and the notices were sent on different address by the ld. CIT(A) instead of PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR assessee’s E Mail address mentioned in Form 35 prernaint11@gmail.com whereas the ld. CIT(A) sent the hearing of notices at E Mail address shelumaheshwari@gmail.com. Thus the ld. AR submitted that this E-Mail id shelumaheshwari@gmail.com. is not related to her. To this effect, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following written submission before the Bench. The Ground-wise submission is as under”- 1. GOA I On the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC erred in passing the order with non application of mind. The assessee always submitted the response on IT portal for notices / letter posted on the portal and requested to grant adjournment. The Id. CIT appeal NFAC had not considered the request for adjournment submitted on IT portal and held that the appellant has never responded and filed any written submission in support of its grounds of appeal." Whereas the fact is that the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC had sent various notices on the IT portal & the Assessee always responded to every notice served on IT Portal. Your honour the Assessee provided the Email Address in Form 35 prernainti1@gmail.com whereas the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC mentioned that various Hearing notices through emailto shelumaheshwari@gmail.com on various dates. Email Address shelumaheshwari@gmail.com is not related to the Assessee. 1.1. Plea of the Id. CIT (Appeals) is appearing in Ld. CIT at page no. 2 point no. 2.0. 1.2. The facts are as under:- A. Your honour, the Ld. CIT Appeals Notice was initially issued on 25.09.2024 fixing the date of submission on 03.10.2024. (Kindly see paper book page no. 1-4). The AR requested with reference to above notice that hearing of the above case is fixed for hearing on 03.10.2024 but due to last date of Audit Income Tax Return (07.10.2024), so the case could not be prepared so your honour please kindly allow us 20 days' time period. (Kindly see paper book page no. 5). HoweverLd CIT(A) stated in order para no 2 page no. 2 "that Notice was initially issued on 25.09.2024 to which the appellant has chosen not to respond". Your honour, the aforesaid adjournment application is appearing on the portal. Hence the Ld.CIT Appeals had erroneously hold that the appellant has chosen not to respond. B. Your honour, the Ld. CIT Appeals Notice was again issued on 11.11.2024 fixing the date of submission on 18.11.2024. (Kindly see paper book page no. 7-10). The AR requested with reference to above notice that hearing of the above case is PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR fixed for hearing on 18.11.2024 but due to health issue of A/R,, so case could not be prepared so your honour please kindly allow us 30 days' time period. (Kindly see paper book page no. 11). HoweverLd CIT(A) stated in order para no 2 page no. 2 "Subsequently, another notice was issued to the appellant on 11.11.2024, fixing the date of submission on 18.11.2024 again the appellant had not responded." Your honour, the aforesaid adjournment application is appearing on the portal. Hence the Ld.CIT Appeals had erroneously hold that again the appellant had not responded. C Your honour, the Ld. CIT Appeals Notice was again issued on 18.12.2024 fixing the date of submission on 26.12.2024. (Kindly see paper book page no. 13-16). The AR requested with reference to above notice that hearing of the above case is fixed for hearing on 26.12.2024 but due to health issue of A/R,, so case could not be prepared so your honour please kindly allow us 30 days' time period. (Kindly see paper book page no. 17). HoweverLd CIT(A) stated in order para no 2 page no. 2 "As per the set principles of natural justice, the appellant has been issued notice on 18.12.2024 fixing the date of compliance on 26.12.2024. But, the appellant has notresponded to the above notices issued". Your honour, the aforesaid adjournment application is appearing on the portal. Hence the Ld.CIT Appeals had erroneously held that the appellant has not responded to the above notices issued. 1.3. Hence, it is bad in law and facts by holing that "It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and is generally buying time through these delaying tactics. Thus the appeal is being disposed off accordingly." 1.4. Your honour, the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in gross violation of the basic principles of natural justice i.e. audi-altram- partem. The Ld. AO had most arbitrarily without intimating the rejection of the assessee request had proceeded with and disposed off the appeal.’’ To support the submission, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following paper book. S.N. Particulars Page No.
1. Notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1-4 DIN:ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/2024-25/1069069214(1) dated 25-09-2024 2. Adjournment application Ack No. 561793361031024 5-6 dated03-10-2024 3. Notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 7-10 DIN:ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/2024-25/1070246257(1) dated 11-11-2024 4. Adjournment application Ack No. 714731891181124dated 11-12 18-11-2024 5. Notice u/s 250 of the Incomew Tax Act, 1961 13-16 PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR DIN:ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/2024-25/1071331973(1) dated 18-12-2024 6. Adjournment application Ack No. 774904391261124 dated 17-18 26-12-2024 While hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that be that it may the assessee should not deprive from the justice and thereby submitted that the assessee be given one chance to present the facts before the ld. CIT(A).
During the course of hearing, the ld. DR did not object to the grievance raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, before the Bench.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the AO (Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) while making the assessment noticed that the assessee had filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was reopened by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08-05-2020. Subsequently, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 27-09-2021 making addition of Rs.61,85,490/- u/s 69 of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. From the records, it is noted that the assessee could not advance the PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR submission before the ld. CIT(A) as the notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) was on different E-Mail Id shelumaheshwari@gmail.com instead of E-Mail Id mentioned in Form No.35 by the assessee i.e. prernainti1@gmail.com. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity to contest the case before him.However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
PRERNA REALPROMOTERS PVT LTD VS ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 15 /07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15/07/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- M/s. Prerna Realpromoters Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.482/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत