SHANTABEN LAXMANBHAI PANSURIYA L/H. LAXMANBHAI ODHAVJIBHAI PANSURIYA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), SURAT

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. The ld. counsel for the assessee has further brought out attention to page no. 3 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) to show that all the notices of hearings were allegedly served on ITBA Portal. That no notice of hearing was served to the assessee either through physical mode or even through email. The assessee was, therefore, not aware of the dates of hearing before the CIT(A) and the case of the assessee remained un-represented before the CIT(A) resulting into the impugned ex-parte order of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the records. Uploading of notices on ITBA portal is not a proper service as per the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, therefore, the non- representation of the assessee before the CIT(A) cannot be said to be intentional. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass the order afresh on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) will serve the notice of hearing upon the assessee through physical mode and also through electronic mode/email etc. The assessee will also participate promptly in the hearing before the CIT(A) as and when so directed.