SATISH JAIN,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1),IND, INDORE

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 04.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2017-18. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in sending notices on wrong email-id i.e.satishagro@gmail.com cc -saloni_anju@yahoo.co.in instead of pankajgshah@gmail.com as stated in Form 35. The Appellant prays that the EXPARTE order of CIT(A) passed without serving ITANo.55/Ind/2024 Satish Jain the notices on correct email id be directed to be quashed and set aside.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,45,78,441 under Section 68 of the Act which is prayed to be deleted.”

2. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing ex-parte impugned order. He has pointed out that the notices were sent by the CIT(A) to the E-mail ID different from the E-mail ID given in form no.35. He has referred to the form no.35 and submitted that for the purpose of notice the assessee has given E-mail ID of his authorized representative pankajshah@gmail.com whereas the CIT(A) has sent the notices to satishagro@gmail.com which was in use due to the closure of business by the assesse. Ld. AR has filed a print out of the details of notice send by the CIT(A) taken from E- processing portal of the department. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that impugned order of CIT(A) may be set aside and assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).

ITANo.55/Ind/2024 Satish Jain 4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The CIT(A) has given the details of the notices send to the assessee in para 4 as under:

Sr.No. Notice issued on Due date of reply Reply submitted by the appellant

“6.The appellant has challenged the addition made of Rs.10,45,78,441/- unexplained cash credit u/s 68, without submitting sufficient evidences or counter arguments in support of his claims. Mere claiming that the AO erred in making the additions does not give an edge to the appellant. Further, during appellate proceedings, no response received from the appellant to substantiate his claim in support of grounds of appeal though enough opportunities of being heard were given to him, as tabulated in Para 4 above. The appellant has not made any argument much less Page 3 of 5

ITANo.55/Ind/2024 Satish Jain submitted any evidence on the basis of which the proposition made by the A.O. in the impugned assessment order can be controverted. Hence, keeping in view all the stated facts and discussions, I find no reason in altering the additions made by the AO. In view of this, the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4.2 We further note that in the form 35 the assesse has given E- mail ID for communication and notice as “pankajshah@gmail.com” whereas the CIT(A) send the notices to the E-mail ID “satishagro@gmail.com” therefore, we find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that the notices were not sent by the CIT(A) to the E- mail ID given by the assesse and hence the assesse was not aware about alleged notices issued by the CIT(A). Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by a speaking order after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25 .06.2024.