CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY LATTUPALLI,RANGA REDDY DISTRICT vs. ITO WARD-9(4), HYDERABAD

It is the submission of the learned AR on behalf of the assessee that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), so also the learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex-parte, observing that various notices were issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices, nor did the assessee make any written submissions. Learned also AR submitted that the assessee opted not to serve the notices by e-mail, but the Revenue authorities sent the notices only by e-mails, which the assessee could not verify because being a vendor he moves from place to place.

Learned AR further submitted that even otherwise also the learned CIT(A) could have referred to the facts and dispose of the matter on merits, so as to render effective assistance to the higher appellate fora. Learned AR submits that in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to effectively prosecute the appeal, by restoring the appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer.

Though the learned DR vehemently opposed the request of the assessee, the fact remains that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act and there is no contradiction of the fact that assessee prayed not to serve the notices by e-mail, and also that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeal on merits. In the impugned order, learned CIT(A) observed that because of the absence of the assessee, he was left with no option except to confirm the order of the learned Assessing Officer, and on this premise alone, learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order and dismissed the appeal.

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 CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits instead of dismissing the same.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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. If the request of the learned AR is granted affording an opportunity to the assessee to prosecute his case before the learned Assessing Officer by submitting the evidence, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former must give way to the latter.

When the question as to, to whom the matter has to be remanded has arisen, both the counsel submitted that since the assessee could not prosecute the case before the learned Assessing Officer, it would be convenient if the matter is restored to the file of the learned Assessing Officer facilitating the verification of facts, if any, arising on the plea of the assessee. I too find it just and convenient to do so. With this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to pass an order in accordance with law. Assessee undertakes to be diligent and submitted that any notice sent to the e-mail ID of safim3257@gmail.com would be legal compliance with proper issuance of notice. Recording the same, I 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 to the assessee of being heard. I order accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.