AASHIMA GARG,JHAJJAR vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: 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 considered the assessee's claim that notices were sent to a different address than specified in Form 35, leading to a lack of proper service and opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, ensuring that the assessee is provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs.18,77,000/- made under section 69A, which was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2017-18. The assessee contended that the Ld.CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte without adequate opportunity, as notices were allegedly sent to an incorrect email address, and the assessment was completed under section 144 without sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld.CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity, and if the notices were properly served on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 13.03.2024

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 13.03.2024 27.05.2024 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) – NFAC, Delhi dated 26.09.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in sustaining the addition of Rs.18,77,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the Ld.CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte without providing adequate opportunity. Referring to Form 35 Ld. Counsel submits that it was mentioned in the column i.e. whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail the assessee stated

I.T.A.No.65/Del/2024 that no notice communication be sent to e-mail which is given under personal information in Form 35. However, in column 17 where address to which notices may be sent to appellant the assessee stated that the notices be sent to e-mail address mentioned of his Authorized Representative along with mobile number. The Ld. Counsel submits that the notices were sent to a different mail address which the assessee is not using.

3.

Ld. Counsel further submits that the assessment was completed under 144 of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment.

4.

Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO provided three opportunities to the assessee and the assessee furnished certain details in the assessment proceedings. In the appellate proceedings it is the contention of the assessee that the notices were sent to a different address then what was given in Form 35. It is the submission that the notices were never served on the assessee.

I.T.A.No.65/Del/2024

5.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for denovo assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/05/2024

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →