DEVENDRA GUPTA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

ITA 583/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 March 2025AY 2016-173 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the submissions of both parties and upholding the principles of natural justice and fair play, decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the improper service of notices, which led to an ex-parte order. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Tribunal noted that if the assessee fails to comply, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Devendra Gupta, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhopal, under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee's grievance is that the CIT(A) issued hearing notices to incorrect email addresses (adapg9833e@gmail.com/dgenterprises38@gmail.com) instead of the one provided in Form No. 35 (chawla_kishore@hotmail.com). Consequently, the assessee could not attend the hearings, leading to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A). The assessee also contends that the CIT(A)'s order failed to comply with Section 250(6) by not stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid, considering the alleged non-service of proper notices to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as argued by the assessee? 2. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is in compliance with the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing, stating points for determination, decision, and reasons, as contended by the assessee? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) sent hearing notices to incorrect email addresses, leading to the assessee's inability to attend hearings and resulting in an ex-parte order. The assessee also contended that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee prayed for the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and remand for proper adjudication after issuing correct notices. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue's representative agreed with the prayer of the assessee and requested a direction for the assessee to represent their case diligently before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 18.03.2025Pronounced: 19.03.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

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

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 07.06.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 18.12.2018 passed by learned ITO-1(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Ld. AR for assessee submits that the CIT(A), while conducting first- appeal, has sent notices of hearing to e-mail address: adapg9833e@gmail.com/dgenterprises38@gmail.com although the assessee has specifically mentioned email address: chawla_kishore@hotmail.com in the space provided in Form No. 35 for sending notices on email. Therefore, due to non-service of notices at proper email address, the assessee could not attend hearings fixed by CIT(A), which has led to the passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A). That apart, 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 in present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal and merely confirmed AO’s order which is not in compliance with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, Ld. AR prays, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter should be remanded back to CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving proper notices to assessee.

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.

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 CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order.

Page 2 of 3 The assessee is also directed to 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.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 19/03/2025

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →