Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to COVID-19 causing hospital closure and a change in management. The new management was unaware of the proceedings as notices were sent to the old management's email address.
Held
The Tribunal found that the new management was not aware of the proceedings and compliance could not be made. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed for non-prosecution due to change in management and lack of awareness of proceedings should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A) in short], both dated 05.03.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2013-14 and AY 2014-15.
At the outset, it is seen that both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that due to COVID-19, the operations of the hospital run by the assessee society was closed. Therefore, new management has stepped into and the operations of the hospital were resumed. The notices for hearing were delivered to the registered email address of the old management who did not take the same seriously. It is further stated that the new management was not aware of the proceedings, nor such notices were brought to their knowledge therefore, the necessary compliance could not be made either before the AO or before the CIT(A) for both the assessment years. He thus prayed that both the orders may be remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR has not objected to the request of the assessee.
After considering the arguments, we find that in the present appeals, the new management has taken over the operations of the assessee society and notices were sent on the mail-id of the old management who took no interest and therefore, due compliance could not be made before the lower authorities for both the years. Under these circumstances, in the larger interest of justice, we set aside both the orders and remitted back them to the file of the AO with direction to pass orders denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the AO for both the assessment years. With these directions, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee in both the assessment years are partly allowed for statistical purposes.