KALAVATHI BOLLABOENA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 624/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 September 2024AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21. The assessee claimed that notices were not received as they were sent to an incorrect email address.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is valid when notices were not served on the correct email address of the assessee, leading to a lack of opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA

Hearing: 03/09/2024

सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 06/09/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K.NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M:

Aggrieved by the order dated 08/03/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld. CIT(A)”), Hyderabad-12 in the case of Kalavathi Bollaboena (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2019- 20 and 2020-21, assessee preferred these appeals.

2.

At the outset Ld. AR brought to our notice that in Form No.35, e-mail address of the plaintiff was given as maheshkumargodha@gmail.com, whereas, the Ld.CIT(A) issued notice to suris38@gmail.com. He filed the screenshots from the website of the Revenue and submitted that since the assessee did not receive the notices, he could not respond properly. He further submitted that in this case, assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and, therefore, if the matter is restored to the file of the Learned Assessing Officer, it would be in the interest of justice.

3.

Learned DR though resisted vehemently the request of the petitioner to restore the issue to the file of the authorities, the fact remains that the notice appears to have been issued not to the e-mail mentioned in Form No.35 as is evident from the copies of the screen shots filed by the assessee.

4.

On a careful perusal of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the impugned order and restore it to the file of the authorities for fresh disposal after issuing notice to proper address. Since the assessment in this case is u/s 144 of the Act, it would be just and convenient if the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to issue notice to the assessee, afford an opportunity of being heard and then take a view according to law. We hold and order so. Grounds are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of September, 2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →