Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice and a speaking order. Specifically, notices of hearing were sent to an incorrect email address, preventing the assessee from presenting its case.
Held
The Tribunal found that the notices of hearing were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, due to which the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper opportunity to the assessee and whether notices were sent to the correct address.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT ’SMC’ BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha
Year : 2017-18 Vaibhav Corporation The Income Tax Officer बनाम 114/2/1, Vaibhav Corporation Ward-3(2)(1) / Dabholi, Katargam Surat 0 395 001 v/s. Surat – 395 004 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AANFV 6268 J (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 21/05/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18.
The assessee, in this appeal, has raised the following grounds of appeal: Vaibhav Corporation vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the 1 subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, assessing officer has erred in re-opening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the L.T. Act, 1961.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the jurisdictional assessing officer has erred in issuing notice u/s 148A(b) and passing the order u/s 148A(d) when it is R actually required to be passed by the Assessment Unit (NFAC).
5. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law on subject, the assessing officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 37,22,000 u/s. 69A on account of alleged unexplained money.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab. The addition if any that may be confirmed should be taxed as business income.
7. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retroactive manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provisions of S.115BBE.
8. It is therefore prayed that the assessment framed may please be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) OR assessing officer and/OR the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act may please be quashed and/0R addition made by assessing officer may please be deleted.
9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter OR DLEETE any ground(s) cither before OR in the course of assessment proceedings.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex- parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not send the notices of hearing at the email-id given Vaibhav Corporation vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 in the appeal Form No.35, rather at a different email-id, hence, the notices of hearing sent by the Ld. CIT(A) did not come to the notice of the assessee. Therefore, the case of the assessee remained unrepresented before the Ld. CIT(A) resulting into the passing of the impugned ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the copy of the notice sent by the Ld. CIT(A) as downloaded from the Income-tax Portal which shows that the notices of hearing were not sent by the Ld. CIT(A) at the given email-id in appeal Form No.35.
4. Since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the notices of hearing was sent by the Ld. CIT(A) at different email-id, therefore, the assessee could not represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for passing the appellate order afresh in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case.
With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09/03/2026. ( Narendra Prasad Sinha ) Judicial Member अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 09/03/2026 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS Vaibhav Corporation vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18