SHANI CORPORATION LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF

ITA 879/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 July 2024AY 2017-18Bench: the appellate authority and submitted that Ld. CIT(A has sent the messages/notices to unrelated email. In this regard, he submitted that assessee had no opportunity to represent the case before the First Appellate Authority due to the miscommunication. He prayed that this appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re adjudication. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has no specific objection towards the submissions of the Ld. AR. 4. Considered the rival submissions and material 3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) had sent appeal notices to an incorrect email ID, different from the one specified in Form No. 35, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to represent their case.

Held

The tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) indeed issued notices to an unrelated email ID. Consequently, the tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to issue fresh notices to the correct email ID, provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing, and re-adjudicate the appeal on merits.

Key Issues

Validity of appeal dismissal for non-prosecution by CIT(A) when notices were sent to an incorrect email address, denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

Sections Cited

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sahu, CA

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Hearing: 03/07/2024Pronounced: 24/07/2024

O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 19/01/2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Shani Corporation Limited vs. ITO 2. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that Ld.

CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non prosecution. In this regard, it was submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has issued several notices to the assessee by using email-id dkgdkg300@gmail.com whereas the actual email-id of the assessee is msahu.fca16@gmail.com the same was reflected on the face of the Form No.35 filed by the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. AR brought to our notice Form 35 filed by the assessee before the appellate authority and submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sent the messages/notices to unrelated email. In this regard, he submitted that assessee had no opportunity to represent the case before the First Appellate Authority due to the miscommunication. He prayed that this appeal may be remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re adjudication.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR has no specific objection towards the submissions of the Ld. AR.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that Ld. CIT(A) has issued various notices to unrelated email id and not on the proper email id as mentioned in Shani Corporation Limited vs. ITO the Form No.35, therefore, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to issue the notice to the assessee and adjudicate the issues raised by the assessee as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.