Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a former employee of the Forest Department, filed a return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring Rs. 2,88,170/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization. The AO added Rs. 11,00,000/- to the returned income.
Held
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, despite the assessee claiming notices were sent to an incorrect email ID. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act and should have decided the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, and whether proper procedure was followed regarding notice service.
Sections Cited
Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “A” BENCH, BANGALORE
Muroor Ramesh Nayak The Income Tax Officer 1/1, Muroor Beejathadka Ward - 1, Puttur vs. Mandekolu, Sullia TQ. 574256 PAN – AJJPN9644H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Srinivasa Kamath S., CA Revenue by: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing: 01.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 02.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee challenges the DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2004-25/1064225940(1) of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) dated 19.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
The brief fact of the case that that the assessee, an individual, prior to his retirement, was an employee of Forest Department. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned year on 31.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.2,88,170/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny in order to verify the source of cash deposited during the demonetisation period.
During the assessment proceedings the assessee while attending the proceedings, filed a written reply explaining the source of cash deposits. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not agree with the replies of the assessee and added an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the returned income.
Muroor Ramesh Nayak 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), after issuing number of notices to the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution.
Now the assessee has come up in appeal before us. Ld. Counsel of the assessee, in order to explain the reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A), drew the attention of the Bench towards the email ID mentioned in Form 35 for the issuance of notices. He contended that there were two email IDs in Form 35, one mail ID, linked with PAN of assessee has been picked up automatically by the system and another was mentioned by the assessee, manually in the last column of From 35. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) has issued the notices at the mail ID picked by the system instead of the mail Id specifically mentioned in last column for the service of notices of hearing.
The learned D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we find that though the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that he has issued around 11 notices to the assessee. However the Ld CIT(A) has failed to pin point as to whether any notice, has actually been served upon the assessee via that mail id mentioned in last column of Form 35. Further the CIT (A) has ignored the provisions of s. 250(6) of the Act. Which provisions, mandate that the ld. CIT (A), while disposing of an appeal, shall state in writing the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Further, it is settled position of law that the powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO. In this case the CIT(A) has just dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ignoring the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decide the appeal of the assessee on merits instead of simply dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Hence, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for deciding a fresh to deal the case on merits in accordance with law. Needless to say that the ld. CIT (A), while deciding the appeal of the assessee, would grant meaningful opportunity to the assessee before passing any order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd July, 2024.