SRISAITHIRUMALA CHITFUNDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,WARANGAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that one Sh. Ramesh, Income Tax Practitioner, Karimnagar was looking after the income tax affairs of the assessee, he was managing the email of the assessee for the purposes of income tax notices and was informing the assessee whenever there used to be any messages/notice from the Income Tax department. Ld. AR further submitted that the said person, for his own reasons, stopped intimating the assessee about the information received from the Income Tax Department, and therefore, the assessee did not have any knowledge about the notice about the assessment proceedings and that is the reason why the assessee could not produce the relevant material before the learned Assessing Officer, which resulted in ex parte proceedings and order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Ld. AR further submitted that the Managing Director of the assessee company was sick and admitted in Omni Hospital, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, underwent surgical operation and was bedridden. Ld. AR submits that that is the reason why the assessee could not prosecute the first appeal and also resulted in filing this appeal with a delay. She submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not comply with the provisions under section 249(4)(b) of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has got a meritorious case and is in possession of all the documents necessary to establish their case and given an opportunity, the assessee is ready to produce the same before the learned Assessing Officer and get the matter disposed of on merits. Ld. AR submitted that in the case of Janakikram Dammalapati v. ITO in under similar circumstances, this Tribunal afforded an opportunity to the assessee.

Though the learned DR, vehemently opposed the prayer to afford an opportunity to the assessee to produce all the material before the learned Assessing Officer, the fact remains that the assessment order was in ex parte order passed under section 144 of the Act and also that the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for non-compliance with section 249(4)(b) of the Act.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It is a fact that the assessment order is an ex parte order passed under section 144 of the Act. Plea of the assessee is that during the initial years of notices by email, due to the non-cooperation of the income tax practitioner, they could not know about the notices issued to them and that is the reason why they could not participate in the assessment proceedings to submit all the material. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that by affording an opportunity to the assessee, no prejudice would be caused to the other side and the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits.

With this view of the matter, I restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee to submit the material and to participate in the proceedings to get the matter disposed of on merits. It is made clear that the notices will be issued to the email address given in Form 36 and that would be sufficient compliance with the issuance of notice. Ground answered accordingly.