Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal against an assessment order. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) disposed of the appeal without a proper hearing, citing an incorrect email for notice and an order passed before the due date for response.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's arguments regarding improper notice and hearing to be factually correct. The notice for hearing was sent to an incorrect email address, and the order was passed before the specified response date.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to improper notice and an order passed prematurely?
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Lalit Ratanchand Jagawat, Shop No. 20, Shahi Galli, 1st Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai - 400002 [PAN: AAKPJ3271G] …………… Appellant Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs Tax, Circle-23(2), Mumbai, Matru Mandir, Mumbai -400007 ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Satyaprakash Singh For the Respondent/Department : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date : 14.02.2024 Conclusion of hearing : 29.02.2024 Pronouncement of order O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, dated 30/06/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 24/12/2019, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.
1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 30/06/2023 passed under section 250 by the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi is excessive, unreasonable, arbitrary, against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961, and unlawful due to :- (a) The order under section 250 was passed on 30/06/2023 whereas the date of compliance of notice issued for hearing of the case was 10/07/2023. Kindly refer to Annexure 'A' (b) The notice for hearing was served on the 'mahendra.jain_1950@yahoo.in (Annexure 'B') which is not regular email Id of the Appellant. The Appellant's primary and secondary email Id is attached as per profile in (Annexure 'C') and further in Form 35 the email Id mentioned is NAKODABULLION@HOTMAIL.COM (Annexure'). Hence the Appellant had not been served proper notice. (c) Proper notice under section250 for hearing was not issued to the Appellant. In fact, in the notice date 24/06/2023, a balance sheet of SHRI GANPATI VINAYAK PRINTERS was attached as download which can be verified from (Annexure 'B' and Annexure 'E').
2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.47,22,429/- under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of deposit in the bank account of the Appellant against sales made to M/s.Riddhi Siddhi Jewels.”
The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant, proprietor of 3. Nakoda Bullion, filed return of income of the Assessment Year 2012- 13 on 10/09/2012. The regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act completed in the case of the Appellant on 26/09/2014. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated which culminated into passing of order dated 24/12/2019 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.
2 The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the addition of 4. INR 47,22,429/- made in the hands of the Appellant under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits made in the account of the Appellant. The Appellant also challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Vide order, dated 03/06/2023, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A).
Being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal of appeal, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the 6. Appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appeal preferred by the Appellant before the CIT(A) has been disposed off without granting Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the Appellant was not served with proper notice of hearing. The notice for hearing was served on the 'mahendra.jain_1950@yahoo’ in whereas Appellant's primary and secondary Email ID as per the profile and as stated in Form 35 is NAKODABULLION@HOTMAIL.COM. Further, in the notice, date 24/06/2023, balance sheet of Shri Ganpati Vinayak Printers was attached. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant was granted time to file response till 10/07/2023 vide notice of hearing dated 24/06/2023 whereas the order passed under Section 250 of the Act on 30/06/2023. It was also submitted that the aforesaid order dated 30/06/2023, passed by the CIT(A) was also sent to the abovesaid Email ID (i.e. 'mahendra.jain_1950@yahoo) and not to correct/registered Email ID of the Appellant. After getting knowledge of the aforesaid order of dismissal passed by the CIT(A), the Appellant filed the present 3 appeal after delay of 46 days. Though there was no delay in filing the present appeal by the Appellant, as a matter of abundant caution the Appellant has filed application seeking condonation of delay taking the date of passing of the order as a date of knowledge.
On perusal of material placed before us, we find that the averments 7. made by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant are factually correct. The Email address of the Appellant stated in Form No. 35 filed before CIT(A) is nakodabullion@hotmail.com. Further, the notice of hearing dated 24/06/2023 specifies response due date as 10/07/2023 whereas the order impugned has been passed on 30/06/2023. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the delay of 46 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The order dated 30/06/2023 is set aside and the appeal preferred by the Appellant before CIT(A) is restored before the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on the grounds raised therein as per law. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed while Ground No. 2 is dismissed as being infructuous.
In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for 8. statistical purposes.