GAJENDRA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6417/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 April 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that notices were not received due to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) order was set aside to allow a fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance with notices for defect removal. The assessee claimed these notices were sent to an incorrect email address, leading to non-receipt.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeals for non-compliance is valid when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices due to an incorrect email address.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.S. SAINI

For Respondent: Shri N.S. Saini, AM
Hearing: 08.04.2019Pronounced: 08.04.2019

ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(Appeals) Ghaziabad dated 05.07.2018 and 31.07.2018 for the AY 2009-10.

2.

At the time of hearing, AR of the assessee submitted that both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee was sent notice for removing the defects on 25.04.2018 and 15.05.2018 at the address given in Form 35 for the communication as well as through e-mail but the assessee failed to reply regarding the condonation of delay. It was submitted by the AR of the assessee that notice was sent by the CIT(A) at the following e-mail address:

ADVOCATEMANISH23@GMAIL.COM Instead of the following e-mail address:

UPVAT.JATIN@GMAIL.COM Therefore, the assessee did not receive the notice and hence, could not comply with the same. Therefore, it was his submission that the matters should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

3.

The DR had no objection to the above submission of the AR of the assessee.

4.

In the above background of the case, I find that there is force in the submission of the DR that the assessee did not receive the notice of hearing. Hence, in order to render substantial justice, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudicating the appeals of the assessee afresh after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →