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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 866/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 January 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order. It directed the CIT(A) to issue physical hearing notices to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits, ensuring principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 74 days, citing unfamiliarity with English and email communication. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte because notices were sent via email, to which the assessee did not respond. The assessee claimed they had not opted for email communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was valid when notices were sent via email despite the assessee not opting for such communication. Whether principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Habibali Kamrudin Vakil The Income Tax Plot No. 3, Munivar Officer, Society, Vs Ward-2(4), Opp. Vora Madresa, Ahmedabad Bhadrod Gate, Mahuva-364296 (Respondent) District: Bhavnagar PAN: AFAPV2857D (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri B.R. Popat, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 22-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against exparte appellate order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Page No 2 Habibali Kamrudin Vakil vs. ITO

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →