Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee was ex parte before the AO and CIT(A) as they were not familiar with online proceedings and their tax consultant had filed an incorrect email address. The assessee claimed to be unaware of ex parte orders due to the tax consultant's negligence.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was granted several opportunities but remained non-cooperative and negligent. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give one more chance to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the assessee for their negligent actions.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's ex parte status and negligence before the lower authorities, or if another opportunity should be granted.
Sections Cited
IT Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 665/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14-03-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2016-17 raising ground of appeal
as mentioned at Form No. 36. 2.1 At the very outset of the hearing, the Bench noticed that the assessee was ex parte before the AO and also before Ld CIT (A) and in this regard it was 2. ROSHAN SHARMA VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR submitted by ld AR that the assessee was not familiar with online proceedings and had appointed tax consultant to look after the matter. It was further submitted that the said tax consultant had also filed up his E mail address in the profile details. Since the assessee was totally dependent upon his tax advisor, who did not even intimate the proceedings before the revenue authorities and thus in this way assessee was not aware of passing of ex parte orders by the revenue authorities. 2.2 On the other hand ld Dr relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities and submitted that it was the negligent conduct of the assessee therefore the appeal may be dismissed 2.3 After having heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities, I noticed that undisputedly the assessee was granted several opportunities by the revenue authorities but the assessee as well as his representative remained non cooperative and negligent in pursuing its case on the date of hearings, where as it was the bounded duty of the assessee as well as his representative to attend and assist the revenue authorities during the course of hearings. However, considering the principles of natural justice and also the principals of Audi altrem partem and also keeping in view the contents of un-rebutted affidavit filed by the assessee, I feel that one more chance should be given to the assessee to contest the case before AO for fresh adjudication and the assessee will submit the necessary