JITENDRA SALUNKE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(2)(3), MUMBAI

Appellant by : Shri Poojan Mehta Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.04.2024 & 19.06.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.

,3365/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Jitendra Salunkhe “1. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in framing an ex parte order.

2. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 10,000 levied under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the NFAC). The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have sustained the impugned penalty inasmuch as, the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice(s) mentioned by the CIT(A) per impugned order have been sent on the e-mail address "vijay.sawant61@gmail.com" which is not the registered e-mail address of the appellant and as such, the impugned notice(s) are never received by the appellant. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard inasmuch as, the notice(s) mentioned per CIT(A) order is issued within short interval. Further, the CIT(A) before passing the order ought to have served the notice considering Rule 127 of Income-tax Rules, 1963 which provides for service of notice through various modes, however, have not done so.”

2. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs 14,282 levied under section 270A of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the NFAC). The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have sustained the impugned penalty inasmuch as, the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice(s) mentioned by the CIT(A) per impugned order have been sent on the e-mail address "vijay.sawant61@gmail.com" which is not the registered e-mail address of the appellant and as such, the impugned notice(s) are never received by the appellant. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard inasmuch as, the notice(s) mentioned per Page 2 of 5 A.Y. 2017-18 Jitendra Salunkhe CIT(A) order is issued within short interval. Further, the CIT(A) before passing the order ought to have served the notice considering Rule 127 of Income-tax Rules, 1963 which provides for service of notice through various modes, however, have not done so.”

Page 3 of 5 ,3365/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Jitendra Salunkhe 6. Before us, Ld. AR pointed out that no notices were received by the assessee from the office of the CIT(A). It was pointed out that the assessee had given email address as 1jitendrasalunke@gmail.com in form No.