What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notices were sent to a wrong email address, which was not the one provided by the assessee in Form 35. This prejudiced the assessee's right to be heard.

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The assessee's counsel argued that no notice was sent to the correct email address provided in Form 35, but rather to a wrong email address. The assessment order was passed ex-parte after a delay of four years.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order was passed without proper notice to the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice.

Jayesh H Solanki, Andheri vs Ward 24(2)(2) | ITAT Mumbai 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain

For Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh

Hearing: 25/06/2024Pronounced: 28/06/2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 25/01/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.144 dated 25/01/2024.

Assessee is aggrieved by passing of exparte order by the ld. CIT(A) without deciding the issue on merits.

Jayesh H Solanki 3. The ld. Counsel pointed out that no notice through e- mail was sent by the ld. CIT(A) and in fact, the notices sent on e-mail from the office of NFAC was at a wrong e-mail address. In Form 35 e-mail address which was mentioned was jaisolanki@gmail.com whereas, notices have been sent by the ld. CIT(A) on j.solanki@hotmail.com. Thus, the notice of hearing itself was sent on a wrong e-mail address.

Here in this case, assessment order was passed on 26/12/2019 whereby addition was made on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.19,12,352/- and addition on account of interest of Rs.22,503/-. The appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 28/01/2020 and in Form-35 clearly the e- mail address was mentioned as jaisolanki@gmail.com and after four years, the order has been passed exparte by the ld. CIT(A) sending the e-mail on wrong e-mail address without even looking to the e-mail ID mentioned in Form-35. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded back to the file of the First Appellate Authority to decide the issue afresh on merits and preferably within a reasonable time as already four years had taken at the stage of First Appellate Authority to pass the order.

Jayesh H Solanki 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th Jun, 2024.

JAYESH H SOLANKI, ANDHERI,MUMBAI vs. WARD 24(2)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments