Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance. The assessee's original email ID on record belonged to the tax practitioner who failed to inform the assessee of hearing dates.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the non-receipt of notices and the issue with the original email ID was genuine. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was made ex-parte and the assessee did not have an opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity to the assessee, especially when the notices were allegedly not properly served due to an issue with the registered email ID.
Sections Cited
68, 144, 147, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE “B” BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.
O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 03.05.2024 in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has also filed a stay application qua the appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that the ld AO based on the information available on AIMS module of ITBA, had treated the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and during the financial year 2016-2017 as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act since no valid explanation about the nature and source of cash/other deposits has been offered by the assessee and SA No. 28/Bang/2024 Vijay Malleshappa Dundasi proceedings were made under u/s. 144 /147 r/w Sec 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Initially the legal heir of the assessee submitted a reply and stated that he has taken over the business of his late father and deposits are nothing but the business income. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that proper opportunity has not been granted by the ld. AO and prayed that the deposits could not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. During the course of appeal proceedings the ld. CIT(A) had issued 4 notices on various dates as below: -
Sr. No. Date of Notice Compliance due Remarks date 1 18.03.2024 26.03.2024 Non-compliance 2 29,03.2024 08.04.2024 Non-compliance 3 09.04.2024 19.04.2024 Non-compliance 4 24.04.2024 01.05.2024 Non-compliance For all the notices the assessee neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor filed any adjournment petition and, therefore, the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal exparte. Against the order of the CIT(A) the present appeal has been filed by the assessee and contended that the notices were not properly served on the assessee and in fact no physical copies were sent to the assessee.
At the time of hearing the learned A.R. of the assessee brought to our notice that the email ID given in Form 35 is prathamgst1234.0@gmail.com, which belongs to the tax practitioner, who might have received the notices but not informed the same to the assessee and he has also not appeared before the CIT(A) and hence the appeal could not be represented by the assessee. The learned A.R. also submitted that subsequently the assessee changed the AR and the present email ID of the present AR is given in Form 36 as camaheshhindi@gmail.com, and on the basis of the notice received in his mail id he is appearing before this Tribunal and prayed to grant one more opportunity to appear before the Ld CIT(A).
SA No. 28/Bang/2024 Vijay Malleshappa Dundasi 4. The learned D.R. submitted that the assessee was not cooperated with the AO and also not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence no relaxation could be granted to the assessee.
We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record. As seen from Form 35 available on record we find that the email ID given in the form is prathamgst1234.0@gmail.com, and therefore the notices would have been sent to the above said mail id of the tax practitioner. We also find that the contention of the assessee that neither the tax practitioner informed the hearing dates nor appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore the assessee has changed the AR and his new e mail id has been given in Form 36, is a genuine one and it cannot be simply rejected. In this case the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act and the ld CIT(A) also passed an exparte order and therefore the assessee does not have an opportunity to put forth his case before the authorities. Further we have also perused the email ID given in Form 36 and found that the same is a different email ID and therefore we accept the reasons stated by the assessee as a genuine one and we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.
We therefore set aside the order of the ld CIT(A)and remitting the issue to his file to decide the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. The ld CIT(A) will serve the notice of hearing through the new email ID given by the assessee, i.e camaheshhindi@gmail.com.
In so for as the stay petition is concerned, since we are disposing the main appeal, there is no need to consider the stay application filed by the assessee and therefore the same is dismissed as infructuous.
SA No. 28/Bang/2024 Vijay Malleshappa Dundasi 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th June, 2024.