Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Doha Bank QSC, appealed against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that notices were sent to email addresses of former employees who left the organization before the notices were issued, rendering them unaware of the proceedings.
Held
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity of being heard due to the non-receipt of notices at the correct addresses. Therefore, the tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case with necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard due to incorrect service of notices.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “I” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai, & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
O R D E R
PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM :
The present appeal arises out of the order dated 07.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai for A.Y. 2015-16.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.11.2023, 13.02.2024, 05.03.2024, 21.03.2024 and 10.05.2024 was issued to the following e-mail addresses, viz., asundarraman@dohabank.co.in and vgolyan@dohabank.co.in. It is submitted that the above two email addresses belongs to employees of the assessee who left assessee’s organization on 06.09.2022, due to which non-compliance occurred. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was therefore unable to make any representations before the Ld. CIT(A) as it was unaware about the notices having issued. The Ld. CIT(A) thus passed an ex-parte order. 2.1. The Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A), and permission to file requisite details in respect of issue contested. 2.2 The Ld. DR though supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and could not controvert the submissions of the Ld. AR that, the order of the CIT(A) is passed without considering the merits of the case. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us.
It is noted that, proper opportunity of being heard has not been received by the assessee, due to non receipt of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) to mail addresses belongs to the employees who left assessee before the notices were issued. Without standing on technicalities, in the interest of justice, we remit the appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is also given liberty to file necessary evidences and details on the alleged issues before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass detailed order on merits, after considering the submissions/ documents/ evidences filed by the assessee on the issues contested. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.