DIMENSION CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 310/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 June 2024AY 2014-2015Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 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 observed that notices were sent to an email address different from the one provided by the assessee in Form No. 35, and this fact was not refuted by the Revenue. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. Commissioner due to non-receipt of notices and failure to file submissions. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form No. 35, and they only received one notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard, given the alleged non-receipt of notices by the correct email address?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, we observe that in spite of sending various notices starting from 17.02.2020 till 17.10.2023, the Assessee neither filed any reply/submission nor sought any adjournment, therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte and affirmed the addition of Rs.39,20,000/- on account of unsecured loan of Rs.35,00,000/- and interest expenditure of Rs.4,20,000/- @ 12% of Rs.35,00,000/- made by the AO vide assessment order dated 27.12.2018 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. The Assessee before us, at the outset demonstrated the fact that in Form No.35 the Assessee has mentioned the email address as sudha999@gmail.com however, except receiving one notice dated 2nd November 2022, the Assessee never received any notice of hearing/defect letter allegedly issued by the Ld. Commissioner and therefore in the interest of justice, opportunity may be given by remanding the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits but by affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

3.

We have perused the screenshot filed by the Assessee wherefrom it appears that notices were sent to other email address but not the email address mentioned by the Assessee in FORM-35. This fact has also not been refuted/contradicted by the Ld. D.R.. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the Assessee remained un-represented due to non-receipt of the appropriate notices on the email and/or address mentioned in form No.35, hence for the substantial justice and just decision of the case, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

4.

We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential and required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Hence, the case is remanded accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.06.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →