Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was dismissed for want of proper service of notice. The CIT(A) had issued the notice to an incorrect email address, leading to the assessee's non-representation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard, and their substantial rights were involved. Therefore, the grounds of appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee due to incorrect service of notice.
Sections Cited
254(1), 147, 148, 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A.. Department represented by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR Appeal instituted on 29/10/2024 Date of hearing 16/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 16/01/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 02/09/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. A.O. has erred in reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 54,70,500/- u/s 69A as alleged unexplained money.
5. It is therefore prayed that assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act may kindly be quashed and/or addition made by assessing officer may please be deleted.
Renuka Harshil Patel Vs ITO 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in course of hearing of the appeal.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in an ex parte order. In fact, notice of appeal was not served on the assessee. The assessee has given e-mail address on Form-35 as janani4239@gmail.com, however, the notice of hearing of appeal was sent on another e-mail address viz yas.n.associates@gmail.com. Though, the order was served on assessee through e-mail mentioned on Form-35. The assessee immediately filed the present appeal well within time. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has good case on merit and will suffer prejudice, if the case is not adjudicated on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee may be allowed at least one opportunity to explain the facts of case before the ld. CIT(A) 3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee is a habitual defaulter even they have not made any compliance before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer also made addition for want of proper submission. The assessee does not deserve any further leniency.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We find that the assessee while filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A), has given e-mail address viz; janani4239@gmail.com, however, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC issued notice at different e-mail address i.e. yas.n.associates@gmail.com. In absence of proper service of notice the assessee remained unrepresented. No fair and reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee before passing the order by ld. CIT(A). Though, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order Renuka Harshil Patel Vs ITO as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that substantial right of assessee are involved in the present appeal, therefore, grounds of appeal
raised by assessee are restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the grounds of appeal afresh. Needless to direct that before passing the order on merit, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and in making proper compliance and not to make any default in responding the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). With this direction, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.