Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return for A.Y. 2017-18 was scrutinized, leading to an addition of Rs. 37,40,000 under Section 143(3). The subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte, as the assessee reportedly failed to respond to notices issued, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the mode of issuance and service reports of the notices, despite the assessee having requested email service in Form 35A. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing with proper opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex parte without ensuring proper service of notices and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, particularly when the assessee had requested email service.
Sections Cited
Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Assessee’s return was picked up for scrutiny and was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. While making an addition of Rs.37,40,000 which was rectified vide order
09.12.2019 and subsequently challenged before learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) where it was dismissed.
At the time of hearing, it was pointed out at the outset that assessee has raised ground no.3 that the appeal was dismissed without reasonable ground and sufficient opportunity of hearing, though, learned Departmental Representative defended upon the order of learned First Appellate Authority.
As we appreciate that the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)), it comes up that the learned First Appellate Authority mentions about notice dated 28.01.2021 being issued, followed by notice dated 29.12.2022, issued to the assessee for filing response by 06.01.2023 but as the assessee had failed to respond, the appeal was considered ex parte and was dismissed.
However, the impugned order is silent with regard to the fact as to what was the mode of issuance of notices and what was the reports of service so as to assume that inspite of notice being served, the appellant had failed to respond. In fact, in the Form 35A, assessee had provided any e-mail address and had requested that notice be served by email. The impugned order is silent as the notices were issued as per the request of assessee.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to allow the ground raised in that regard and restore the issue on merits to the file of the learned First Appellate Authority, to give an opportunity of hearing afresh and pass an order thereafter.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.