DR.(MRS.) M. INBAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-7(3),, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1923/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The orders were set aside, and the assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against ex parte orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and the AO. The assessee claimed a violation of natural justice as proper opportunity was not provided due to issues with email communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex parte orders passed by the authorities violated the principles of natural justice and if the assessment should be restored for a fresh hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 24.09.2024Pronounced: 13.11.2024

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 20.05.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2016-17 to 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) and the AO has passed ex parte orders and therefore, he to 1924/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani :: 2 ::

1.

submitted that there is gross violation of natural justice; and since, the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order, citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), pleaded that the assessment may be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment.

3.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that cost may be imposed on the assessee and the assessee should be directed to be diligent and participate in the assessment proceedings.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee and the AO has also passed an ex parte order. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive the notices since the registered e-mail IDs was not that of the assessee, but that of the erstwhile ITP. The ITP being not techno-savvy/conversant with the digital communications, wasn’t able to open/respond to the notices digitally communicated/issued by both the authorities which led to passing of the impugned order as well as the Assessment Order passed ex parte qua assessee. Since the assessee was not heard before the assessment was framed, there is violation of natural justice and therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the to 1924/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore back the assessment to the file of the AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after hearing the assessee. Since there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and thereafter, the AO to frame the de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. The assessee is directed to be diligent and participate in the assessment proceedings by giving correct registered e-mail IDs and file written submissions/relevant documents before the AO and the AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee in respect of all the captioned assessment years.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 13th day of November, 2024, in Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →