SARIKA BHANDARI,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058191140(1) dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12

Page 1 of 7 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011.

The assessee had failed to furnish the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. That the aforesaid assessment order dated 30.11.2018 is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein.

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in the Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as follows:-

Page 2 of 7 “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer of making additions of Rs. 32,25,000 on account of purchase of immovable property. 3 The appellant craves leave to add any new ground of appeal or alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal”.

3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 08.10.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and at the outset contended that there is a delay of 426 days in preferring the instant second appeal before this tribunal. Our attention was invited to the condonation of delay application and an affidavit. It was contended that the “impugned order” is dated 23.11.2023 and the second appeal was required to be filed by 22.01.2024. However the same was filed on 25.03.2025. It was submitted that the assessee had provided all the relevant details pertaining to the case in hand along with documents to her erstwhile counsel in order to make necessary submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). However the erstwhile counsel of the assessee neither filed any submission before the Page 3 of 7 Ld. CIT(A) nor made the assessee aware of the fact that her case has been decided ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in fact came to know of passing of the “impugned order” only when Income Tax officials started insisting for payment of outstanding tax demands in her case. It is only thereafter the assessee consulted other tax consultants and was advised to file the second appeal against the “impugned order” before ITAT. Due to this process filing of second appeal got delayed by 426 days. The Ld. AR then submitted that he relies upon the affidavit dated 24.03.2025 (serial No.5120/25) which affirms and declare the above stated facts by him (supra). Per contra Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue contended that with regard to the delay aspect he leaves it to the wisdom of this tribunal to take appropriate call. After hearing both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR we condone the delay in filing the instant second appeal by the assessee as contents of the affidavit is not seriously opposed by the Ld. DR for revenue. Accordingly the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.

3.2 The Ld. AR then contended that the assessee did not receive any notice(s) from Ld. CIT(A). Further no notice(s) came on e-mail

Page 4 of 7 address bhandarislc@gmail.com as was provided in Form 35. It was also contended basis paper book documents placed on record that the first notice of hearing dated 31.01.2021 for hearing on 04.02.2021 came at marketing shreeram@gmail. com which was not as per the Form No.35. The Second notice of hearing dated 12.09.2023 for hearing on 20.09.2023 came at marketing shreeram@gmail.com which was again not as per the Form No.35. The third notice of hearing dated 12.10.2023 also came at marketing shreeram@gmail.com which was not again as per the Form No.35. Even the fourth notice dated 27.10.2023 came in manner described above. The Ld. AR therefore finally contended that the “impugned order” is in the violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee and the notices went to wrong e-mail id. Per contra Ld. DR has not raised any serious objections to the contentions canvassed by the assessee’s Ld. AR. Finally the Ld. AR pleaded before this tribunal that the “impugned order” be set aside and the matter be relegated back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo basis.

4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process.

4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the rival contentions are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” should be set aside as both the assessee and Ld. DR seems to be on same page. There is a violation of principles of natural justice as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the assessee (supra).

Notice(s) went to wrong e-mail id (supra). It never came to e-mail id as provided in Form No.35. We accordingly set aside the “impugned order” as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo basis with the direction to the assessee to give all the information to the Ld. A.O and to cooperate with the department.

5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 10.10.2025.