Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE
PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, Judicial Member : Aggrieved by the order dated 13/06/2024 passed by the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai, in the case of Krishna Yashvanth Neeli (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee preferred this appeal.
At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the notices sent by the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai are not to the email address as given in Form-35 and therefore, the assessee could not receive the same. Apart from this, he submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai did not follow the requirement of law U/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). He, therefore, prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to put forth his case diligently before the learned Revenue Authorities.
The learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) opposed the request of the assessee but could not contradict the fact that the notices were not sent to the address given in Form-35 and also that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai is not in compliance with the requirement of section 250(6) of the Act.
As could be seen from the record, we find that the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai dismissed the appeal ex-parte, observing that various notices have been issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised. Addl/JCIT(A)-4 did not advert to the facts of the case, grounds of appeal are the points which he decided and no reasons are also forthcoming for dismissal of the appeal except non-appearance of the assessee.
1. 5. Requirement of law under section 250 (6) of the Act is that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same in limine.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not comply with the requirement of Section 250(6) of the Act and cannot be sustained. learned AR submitted that since the learned Assessing Officer also finalized the assessment as per the Intimation U/s. 143(1) of the Act, affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute his case before the learned Assessing Officer, by submitting the documents/evidence, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. We consider this request reasonable, and it would be in the interest of justice to remit the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the submissions of the assessee and take a fresh view in the matter.
7. With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. We direct the assessee to co-operate with the learned Assessing Officer in getting the matter disposed of on merits, without seeking any adjournments and the learned Assessing Officer to take a fresh look at the matter, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2024.