Facts
The assessee's case was re-opened under section 147 for cash deposits, leading to an ex-parte assessment under sections 147/144 due to non-appearance. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee approached the Tribunal, requesting condonation of a 56-day delay in filing the appeal, citing issues with the previous counsel and disputing the validity of ex-parte proceedings when notices were sent by email despite a request for postal communication in Form 35.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay, finding it reasonable given the circumstances. It noted that the FAA proceeded ex-parte without considering the merits and failed to recognize the assessee's preference for postal notices. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration on merits, with directions to issue proper notices via both email and post.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. Validity of ex-parte appeal order when the mode of notice delivery is disputed and merits were not considered.
Sections Cited
144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: ANUBHAV SHARMA & BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The assessee has come in appeal challenging the order dated 05.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as NFAC or in short “FAA”) in an appeal against the Assessment Order under section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to 1 | P a g e as “Act”) dated 10.12.2019 passed by the ITO Ward-5(2)(4), Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”).
Heard and perused the record. 2.1 The facts in brief are that the case of assessee was re-opened for assessment under section 147 of the Act to examine the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and during assessment proceedings the assessee sought adjournment to file documents but subsequently failed to appear and accordingly the assessment was passed under section 147/144 of the Act. As the assessee appealed before Learned First Appellate Authority, there the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee has approached this Tribunal.
At the outset we observe that there is delay of 56 days in filing of appeal for which Learned AR has submitted that the delay was due to lack of assistance of the previous counsel of the assessee who had also defaulted in representing the case of the assessee before Learned Assessing Authority. As the delay is not, of substantial period, we are inclined to except the plea and admit the appeal for hearing after Condonation of Delay.
After going through the Impugned Order of Learned First Appellate Authority we are of considered view that the order clearly 2 | P a g e mention that all the notices, were issued on registered e-mail. However copy of the Form 35 before us shows that Assessee had though provided e-mail address but had mentioned that notices be sent through postal address and not by e-mail.
Then we find that on basis of issuing notices by e-mail the Learned First Appellate Authority has proceeded ex-parte and has not gone on the merits of issue at all.
Thus we are inclined to allow the ground No. 6 and restore the issue on merits to the files of CIT(A)/NFAC for issuing fresh notice by e-mail and post to the assessee and pass an order afresh. The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th October, 2024.