HABIBALI KAMRUDIN VAKIL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), BHAVNAGAR

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that he is an individual and engaged in poultry farming business in small town of Mahuva in Bhavnagar District and being a school drop-out not familiar with English language and email operations, he was total dependence on the issues relating to tax compliances only on the tax professionals. As the Tax Consultant given his email id for communication, so the hearing notices were not served on the assessee. Thus there is a delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal.

The Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar has no serious objection in condoning the delay. Therefore we hereby condone the delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal.

It is noticed from Form No. 35 that the assessee categorically stated “no” to the column “Whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail?”. However notices dated 07.01.2021, 11.06.2021, 21.04.2023 and 02.06.2023 were sent by Ld. CIT(A) by email and there was no response from the assessee. Therefore appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed exparte. It is seen from the appellate order, the physical appeal was filed by the assessee was then migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the Ld. NFAC has not sent physical hearing notices to the assessee.

Therefore in order to meet the ends of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to issue the physical hearing notice to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits by giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should Page No 3 Habibali Kamrudin Vakil vs. ITO make use of this opportunity by producing all the required documents before Ld. CIT(A) for passing fresh appellate order on merits of the case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.