Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as they failed to furnish submissions or evidence in response to four hearing notices. The assessee claimed the notices were never received, possibly due to being in a spam folder.
Held
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and equity, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case. The appeal is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was rightly dismissed for non-prosecution, and if an opportunity for re-hearing should be granted.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 27.09.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17.
2. At the very outset, we notice that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecuting the case. In response to four hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority, the assessee has not furnished its submissions or any documentary evidences. Consequently the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in-limine for non-prosecuting the case.
The ld.AR submitted that the hearing notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee as the same may be settled in the spam folder of the assessee’s e-mail id. It was prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case.
The ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices and since there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued, the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the ld.AR that the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority was never received by the assessee, as the same may be settled in the spam folder of the assessee’s e-mail. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and accordingly the issues raised in this appeal is restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co- operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 at Chennai.