Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Pravinkumar Ramniwas Gupta, appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre for A.Y. 2010-11, where the CIT(A) confirmed an addition. The assessee's primary grievance was that the CIT(A) failed to serve a proper notice before confirming the addition.
Held
The Tribunal found that despite four notices being issued by the CIT(A), they were sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to serve notice on the correct email address, thereby affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order confirming an addition was valid given that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, denying the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 24/01/2024 by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition by not serving a proper notice to the assessee.
Pravin Kumar Romniwas Gupta. ITA no.1331/Mum/2024
Representatives were heard at length case records carefully persued, we find that though the learned CIT(A) issued notice four (4) times but as per the screenshot of the service of notice through email, we find that the notices have been sent on wrong email address. Before us, the counsel assured that the assessee has updated his email address, therefore, we restore the issues to the file of learned CIT(A) with a direction to serve notice on the correct email address affording an opporuntiy of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2024