RUPESH JAISWAL,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-receipt of hearing notices, which were allegedly sent via email despite the assessee opting for physical notices. The original assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 144.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without complying with Section 250(6) and without proper adherence to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte is valid when the assessee did not receive notices due to email communication against his preference and without compliance with Section 250(6).
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 250(6)
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
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Gurugram [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.09.2019 passed by learned ITO-Ward 5(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 4
Rupesh Jaiswal ITA No. 889/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18
Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A), while conducting first-
appeal, has served notices of hearing on e-mail 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 notices of hearing through e-mail. Furthermore,
the CIT(A) has sent those notices of hearing to e-mail address:
ramramsharma1930@gmail.com which the assessee’s counsel (who filed
first-appeal) mentioned in Form No. 35 but the counsel of assessee never
made assessee aware of any of the notices or communications issued by
Income-tax Department in connection with proceedings. Therefore, the
assessee did not receive any notice of hearing fixed by CIT(A) and could not
attend the hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte
order by CIT(A).
Ld. AR further submits that section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act,
1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the
appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the
decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. But, however, the Ld.
CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal although due to non-prosecution by
assessee on the dates of hearing but still without complying with the
mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned order of first appeal
passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter requires a fresh
adjudication by CIT(A).
Page 2 of 4
Rupesh Jaiswal ITA No. 889/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18
Ld. AR, however, drews us to assessment-order to show that the AO
has also passed assessment-order u/s 144 wherein the total income has
been assessed at Rs. 10,90,515/- by treating (i) the deposits of Rs.
10,00,000/- made in bank a/cs during demonetization-period as
unexplained money u/s 69A and (ii) further adding an estimated income of
Rs. 90,515/- @ 10% of Rs. 9,05,159/- on credit entries in assessee’s bank
a/c during the previous year 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 under
consideration. He submitted that the AO has made such assessment since
the assessee was not able to represent his case before AO but the assessee
has subsequently compiled/collected all details/documents and is ready to
represent case before AO. Therefore, in the situation, it would be better to
restore this case to the file of AO instead of CIT(A) for a proper examination
and adjudication.
Ld. DR for revenue instantly agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR to
remand this matter back to the file of AO but, however, makes a request to
direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek
unnecessary adjournments.
Considering above submissions and also having regard to the
principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to remand this
matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and
responsibility of assessee. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of
hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his
earlier order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the
Page 3 of 4
Rupesh Jaiswal ITA No. 889/Ind/2024 - AY 2017-18
hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments
failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 28/04/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 28/04/2025
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4
