M/S. PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., ,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , DAVANAGERE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order in the absence of the assessee's compliance, which was due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found this to be a fit case to be re-visited at the CIT(A)'s level. However, considering that there was also no compliance during the assessment proceedings, the Tribunal decided against remanding the issue back to the CIT(A) as it would cause further delay. Instead, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary evidence and make compliance before the AO. The assessee was also directed not to seek any adjournment without just cause. Consequently, the issue was set aside to the file of the AO for necessary verification and fresh adjudication. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, New Delhi, dated 21/08/2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, M/s Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., did not receive notices from the CIT(A) regarding hearing dates because the notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The email address used by the CIT(A) was dr.basu2575@gmail.com, while the assessee had provided pcardbankhonnali@yahoo.in in Form No. 35. Consequently, the assessee failed to comply with the notices, and the CIT(A) confirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) order in the absence of compliance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee also failed to comply during the assessment proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order without ensuring proper service of hearing notices to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it did not receive the hearing notices from the CIT(A) due to communication to an incorrect email address, leading to non-compliance and confirmation of the AO's order without a proper hearing. The assessee relied on the principle that an ex-parte order passed without proper notice is invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not explicitly record any contentions in the judgment regarding the service of notices or the validity of the CIT(A)'s order. However, the appeal was filed by the Revenue against the NFAC's order, implying a challenge to the NFAC's decision.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi dated 21/08/2023 in DIN No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/ 250/ 2023-24/1055291177(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.
In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) has issued several notices communicating the dates of hearing of the appeal at the email dr.basu2575@gmail.com whereas the email.id given in Form No. 35 for the purpose of communication is pcardbankhonnali@yahoo.in Thus, it is transpired that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) communicating the dates of hearing were not received by the assessee and hence there was no compliance by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any compliance by the assessee confirmed the order of the AO. Considering all these facts stated above, we find that it is a fit case, which needs to be re-visited at the level of ld. CIT(A).
Before parting, it is also noticed that there was also no compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Thus, if we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-A, then he has to call for the remand report from the AO on the documents to be filed by the assessee. This process will delay the proceedings to dispense the justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to produce the necessary evidence and make necessary compliance before the AO. It is also directed to the assessee not to seek any adjournment with just cause. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO for necessary verification and fresh adjudication in the light of the above stated discussion and as per the provisions of law. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
