Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-receipt of notices and failure to file written submissions. The assessee claimed that the notices might have gone into the spam folder of their emails.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were decided ex-parte without adjudication on merits due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. However, to provide an opportunity for justice and equity, the case was restored to the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHUR
Per George George K, Vice President:
These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the two Orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) both dated 28.06.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2012-13 and 2013-14.
At the very outset, we notice that the appeals of the assessee before the CIT(A) have been decided ex-parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The reason for deciding the appeals ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to several notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails.
The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent by the CIT(A) as the same may have been settled in the ‘spam’ folder of the emails. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.