SAGITARIUS SECURITIES & FINANCE LIMITED,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(1), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 929/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 July 2025AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The reasoning was based on upholding the principle of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and then pass an appropriate order. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant, ensure participation in future hearings, and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee failed to comply, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sagitarius Securities & Finance Limited, is in appeal against an order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the ITO-5(1), Indore, under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's grievance is that the CIT(A) issued notices for hearings via email, despite the assessee having explicitly indicated 'No' to receiving communications on email in Form No. 35. This led to the assessee being unable to attend the hearings, resulting in an ex-parte order. The assessee sought a remand to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in issuing notices and conducting hearings via email, contrary to the assessee's specific request for physical communication in Form No. 35, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and due process). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) disregarded its explicit preference for physical communication indicated in Form No. 35 by sending all notices via email. This procedural lapse prevented the assessee from attending hearings, leading to an ex-parte order. The assessee requested a remand to the CIT(A) for a proper hearing and adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative agreed with the assessee's prayer for remand but requested that the assessee be directed to represent its case diligently before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Venus Rawka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-5(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Ld. AR for assessee drew us to following paras of the impugned order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A):

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the appellant carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Coming to the present proceedings, the hearings were fixed on various dates. The notices of hearing were sent through online system/email and duly served upon the assessee.

3.

Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A), while conducting first-appeal, has served notices of hearing on e-mail of assessee although the assessee has specifically mentioned “No” in the column provided in Form No. 35 asking “Whether notices/communication may be sent on email?”.

Therefore, the assessee demanded physical hearing from CIT(A) but against the demand of assessee, the CIT(A) issued all notices through e-mail as mentioned by CIT(A) himself in Para 4 of his order re-produced above. Hence, in absence of service through physical mode as per demand of assessee in Form No. 35, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A). Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee is ready and willing to make a proper representation before CIT(A) if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication of the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeal.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

5.

Considering above submissions of parties and having regard to the principle of natural justice, we remand this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 22/07/2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →