SRI. SUBBAIAH RAJANNA, ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 10/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2024-25/1065517382(1) for the assessment year 2016-17.

At the outset, it was noticed that the assessee did not appear during the proceedings before the learned CIT-A despite the fact that several notices were issued by the learned CIT-A intimating the date of hearing. All the notices were issued by the learned CIT-A at the email ID given by the assessee in form No. 35 submitted in the appeal. However, on perusal of the relevant column of form 35 where the email ID was furnished by the assessee, we note that it was clearly specified that no communication should be sent to the email id. Nevertheless, all the notices were issued by the learned CIT-A through the email only. Thus, we are of the view that non-appearance before the learned CIT-A cannot be attributed to the default of the assessee. As such we are of the view that there was sufficient reason for the assessee which prevented him for non-response of the notices issued by the ld. CIT-A. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the ld. CIT-A. It is also directed that the assessee shall not seek any adjournment without just cause. It is equally important to note that the learned AR of the assessee at the time of hearing before us has also undertaken the responsibility for the necessary compliance before the ld. CIT-A. Thus, in view of the above, we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.