SATBIR MEHLAWAT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2378/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 December 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that they were not properly served with notice. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were disposed of by the CIT(Appeals) without providing an opportunity to be heard. Notices were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided by the assessee in their filings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders without proper service of notice to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 05.12.2024

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 05.12.2024 06.12.2024 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-29, New Delhi dated 21.03.2024 for the assessment years 2015-16, 2017-18 to 2020-21 arising out of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144/153C of the Act.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that all these appeals were disposed of by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) without giving any opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel referring to Form No.35 filed before the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the e-mail address of the assessee for service of notice was mentioned as to 2380/Del/2024 “satbirmehlawat@gmail.com”. However, the notices were apparently sent to a wrong e-mail id which was mentioned as “jalaj_singhal@yahoo.com”. Ld. Counsel also invited my attention to copy of ITR filed for the AY 2020-21 submitted that the very same e-mail id which was mentioned in Form 35 was mentioned in the ITRs filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no service of notice to the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) passed ex parte order without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that these appeals may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to file explanations.

3.

Heard rival submissions. On perusal of page 8 of the Paper Book which is the notice issued by the Ld.CIT(A) to the assessee it is observed that the notices were sent to “jalaj_singhal@yahoo.com” instead of the e-mail address mentioned by the assessee in Form No.35 as “satbirmehlawat@gmail.com”. It is also observed that the assessee has also given the correct mail address even in his return of income as well as in the Income tax portal. Therefore, I find that there is merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee to 2380/Del/2024 was never served with a notice giving an opportunity to furnish his explanations on the issues raised in the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Considering the submissions and evidences placed on record all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) who shall decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →