SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 60(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 205/DEL/2024Status: HeardITAT Delhi25 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: the CIT(A), despite repeated notices served on email of the assessee, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices.4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have seen the orders of authorities below. It is evident from records that the assessment order and the order by First Appellate Authority has been passed in an ex-parte proceedings. The contention of the assessee is that notice u/s.148 issued by the Assessing Officer was never served on the assessee. The assessee3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessment for AY 2012-13 was reopened based on information, leading to an ex-parte assessment order under section 144 r.w.s 147 without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The assessee contended that the notice under section 148 and subsequent notices from the CIT(A) were never served. The department, however, claimed that the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities via email.

Held

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and first appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee's claim of non-service of notices, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the assessee is to provide their current email ID for notice service.

Key Issues

Validity of ex-parte assessment and first appellate orders due to alleged non-service of notices and denial of opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sections Cited

148, 144, 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI

Hearing: 25/04/2024Pronounced: 25/04/2024

ORDER