SANTOSHI SUBBA LAXMI MANDALA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

Facts

The assessee filed a belated income tax return for AY 2017-18, which was selected for limited scrutiny regarding cash deposits. The Assessing Officer estimated her business income at 8% of total bank credits, after disbelieving her claim of being an agent and her supporting documents. The CIT(A) dismissed her subsequent appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution, as she failed to respond to notices sent via email.

Held

The ITAT found that the assessee had opted for physical communication in her Form 35, and despite this, the CIT(A) sent notices only via email, thus denying her a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Considering this procedural lapse and the assessee's medical certificate indicating ill-health, the ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for re-adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal was valid when the assessee had opted for physical communication but notices were sent via email, and if the delay in filing the appeal before ITAT should be condoned due to non-service and the assessee's ill-health.