SYED ARIFF,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, TUMKUR
Facts
The assessee did not file his return of income. The AO issued notices, and upon receiving objections, the assessee explained cash deposits as agricultural income. The AO made an assessment under section 144, treating deposits as unexplained investment and cash credits.
Held
The Tribunal held that notices were sent to the assessee's email despite his explicit instruction not to do so, leading to a lack of knowledge about hearing dates. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte assessment and dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) were valid when notices were sent to the assessee's email against his explicit wishes.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of NFAC dated 11.1.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and he has not filed his return of income and based on the information available with the AO, the AO issued a notice for which the assessee had not replied and not filed the return of income. Thereafter, another notice was issued to which he filed his objections and explained that the cash deposits are nothing but the agricultural incomes. Therefore, the AO had made the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by treating the deposits as unexplained investment and cash credits. The assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC and contended that the AO had not
ITA No.1303/Bang/2024 Syed Ariff, Tumkur Page 2 of 3 considered the replies filed by the assessee and in form 35, the assessee had specifically mentioned that notices/communication may not be sent to the e-mail. The ld. CIT(A) had issued 5 notices to the e-mail ID of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the assessee had no interest in prosecuting the appeal and decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed the same against which the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal:
At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices to the e-mail address given in Form 35 even though the assessee had not opted for sending the notices through the e-mail ID and therefore, the assessee has no knowledge about the various notices sent by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed that one more opportunity be given to appear before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have gone through Form 35 filed
ITA No.1303/Bang/2024 Syed Ariff, Tumkur Page 3 of 3 by the assessee. In the personal information column, the assessee had specifically stated that notices/communication may not be sent through e-mail. Inspite of the specific averment in Form 35, the ld. CIT(A) had communicated of the hearing notices through e-mail ID and therefore, the contention of the ld. A.R. that the assessee has no knowledge about the various hearing dates seems to be correct. Hence, in the interest of justice, we feel that one more opportunity is to be granted to the assessee to appear before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above said facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Aug, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Soundararajan K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 28th Aug, 2024. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
