Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: MEMBER, & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER PER BENCH : This bunch of five appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2013-14, A.Y.2014-15 & 2017-18, dated 24.05.2024 and A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17 dated 25.04.2024 respectively. Since the issue involved is common and facts are identical, all the five appeals were heard together and decided by a consolidated to 1407/PUN/2024 (05 Appeals)
order. We take A.Y.2013-14 as lead case. The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee for A.Y.2013-14 are as under : “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appellant’s appeal and confirming the action of the AO of making addition of Rs.2,12,83,970/- under various sections which are tabulated below without providing sufficient and proper opportunity to the appellant and without verifying whether the notices were served to the appellant or not: Sr.No. Nature of Addition Amount
1. Addition on account of Cash Rs.2,12,83,970/- Deposits U/Sec.69A of the Act
2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the various notices fixed for hearing were not received by the appellant.
3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that he ought to have verified whether proper notice has been served or not, before passing ex-parte order. Therefore, the appellant urges that the Order passed by the CIT(A), be set-aside.
4. The learned CIT(A) has further erred in dismissing appellant’s appeal on merits in a summary manner only on the basis of observations of the AO given in the assessment order and thereby passing ex-parte order.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Findings & Analysis (ITA No.1403/PUN/2024) :
2. In this case, ld.AR filed an affidavit of the assessee stating as under : “4. That the Hearing notices U/Sec. 250 of the Act issued by CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Center were sent to the mail id- mbora009@gmail.com and not to the e-mail address mentioned on Form 35 as well as mentioned on the e-portal i.e., kapale233@gmail.com. I was unaware of these notices and accordingly, I was not able to submit any response to the said notices.
5. That I came to know about the completion of the said appellate to 1407/PUN/2024 (05 Appeals) proceeding's only on receipt of the demand recovery notice and accordingly the same was downloaded from the portal on 20.06.2024 Thereafter, we immediately took the steps to file an appeal before ITAT and filed the appeal on 24.06.2024 i.e., within the prescribed time limits.” 2.1 Ld.AR for the assessee filed screenshot downloaded from the Income Tax Portal to demonstrate that notice under section 250 for A.Y.2013-14 was send by Department at mbora009@gmail.com and not at the Email Address which was mentioned in Form No.35. Form No.35 is the Form of appeal filed by assessee while filing an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue has not disputed the facts mentioned in the Affidavit and also facts mentioned by ld.AR.
2.2 Thus, it is apparently clear that ld.CIT(A) has sent the notices on a wrong Email Id. Therefore, these notices were not received by the assessee, hence assessee could not file reply. Opportunity of hearing is the most important aspect in any judicial and quasi- judicial proceedings as explained in the legal maxim “audi alteram partem”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Of Kerala Vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff Etc on 15 March, 1977; 1977 SCC (TAX) 347, observed as under : Quote, “Now, the law is well settled that tax authorities entrusted with the power to make assessment of tax discharge quasi- judicial to 1407/PUN/2024 (05 Appeals) functions and they are bound to observe principles of natural justice in reaching their conclusions……………………………. One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is the rule of audi alterem parterm which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. ” Unquote.
In this case, assessee had not had the opportunity to explain his case before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order in absence of reply of the assessee, which is evident from paragraph 4.1 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the case to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall file all necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purpose. to 1407/PUN/2024 (04 Appeals) 5. Since we have decided the above appeal of the assessee i.e.1403/PUN/2024 “lead case” and the facts and issue involved is same of all these four appeals are common, the decision of the same shall apply mutatis-mutandis to these four appeals also. to 1407/PUN/2024 (05 Appeals)
Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised in all these four appeals i.e.ITA Nos.1404 to 1407/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose.
5.1 In the result, four appeals of the assessee in to 1407/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose.
To sum up, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th October, 2024.