Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250, which originated from a rectification order under section 154 for AY 2013-14. The assessee contended that the ex-parte dismissal violated natural justice, as hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one specified in Form 35.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the present appeal and noted that NFAC had indeed sent notices to the wrong email address, leading to the ex-parte dismissal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to NFAC to reconsider the condonation of delay for the original appeal under section 246A and, if admitted, to decide on merits according to section 250(6).
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the first appeal by NFAC, due to notices being sent to an incorrect email, warrants setting aside the order and remitting the case for fresh consideration on merits and condonation of delay.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 154, Section 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar 508, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgavi-590006. PAN : AAPPG4152N . . . . . . . Applicant V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073157632(1) dt. 12/02/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. NFAC’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which in turn arisen out of order of rectification dt. 02/03/2021 passed u/s 154 of the Act by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Belagavi [‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment year 2013-14 [‘AY’]. ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 4 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar Vs ACIT AY: 2013-14 2. At the outset, after vouching sufficiency of reasons beyond undeliberate delay of 15 days in instituting present appeal, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. NFAC. Recording the same, advanced accordingly.
Without touching the merits and grounds of the appeal, Ld. AR submitted that, the impugned order has suffered from (a) violation of principle of natural justice and (b) from the compliance of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. The twofold grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is that, except the receipt of notice acknowledging the institution of appeal the assessee was neither served any notices nor the impugned order by the Ld. NFAC. Adverting to paper-book [submitted during the course of hearing] it is averred that; all three notices of hearing were sent to email address not belonging assessee and no notice of hearing was received on the registered email address quoted in Form No 35. Therefore, the said proceedings were conducted in sheer ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 4 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar Vs ACIT AY: 2013-14 violation of principle of natural justice thus rendered itself irregular. Further referring para 5 of the impugned order it is pleaded that, in the absence of assessee and written statement the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal in-limine on the ground of limitation without adhering to principle of natural justice hence suffered from s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. DR could hardly dispute the afforested facts however requested for necessary direction to the appellant assessee to comply with notice that may be issued by Ld. NFAC on remand of this matter.
Without touching the merits of the case, we have heard both the sides on limited ground and carefully examined the facts of the case. Admittedly, the appellant could not cause any appearance before the first appellate authority which led to ex-parte dismissal of the first appeal by the Ld. NFAC. From para 5.3 of the impugned order it is clearly evident that during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC issued notices one after another through email on paranjapec@gmail.com as against the email address notified in Form No 35 by the appellant for receipt of all communication i.e. deepakgojagekar @gmail.com.
ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 4 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar Vs ACIT AY: 2013-14 5. There is hardly any deprecative material placed on record by the respondent Revenue to suggest the failure of appellant to comply with former notices but for none-receipt of notices. Therefore, having considered the facts of the case holistically, we are satisfied that the appellant assessee for stated reasons was prevented from prosecuting the appeal, hence in the larger interest of justice we deem it proper to set-aside the impugned ex-parte order on this score for its remittance to the file of Ld. NFAC to the stage of its institution with a specific directions to (i) deal de-novo with the condonation of inordinate delay in instituting the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act & consequential admission or rejection of such appeal and (ii) if admitted, deal therewith do-novo on merits in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. Ordered Accordingly.
The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before.