What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not send hearing notices to the email address provided by the assessee and that the assessee had opted out of email communication. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside to ensure natural justice.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because the assessee did not appear for hearings. The assessee contended that hearing notices were not sent to the correct email address provided in Form No. 35.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when hearing notices were not sent to the assessee's specified communication channel, violating the principles of natural justice.

Nitinchandra Subhashchandra Shah vs The Dy. Comm. of Income Tax… | ITAT Ahmedabad 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

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

Nitinchandra The Dy.Commissioner Subhashchandra Shah of Income Tax, Anil R. Shah, (C.A.), Vs Circle-3(1), Vadodara Shreeji House, 4th Floor, (Respondent) B/h. M.J. Library, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AFHPS9975A (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 16-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 17-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 15.05.2023 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 2015-16.

Page No 2 Nitinchandra Subhashchandra Shah vs. DCIT

The solitary issue in this appeal is that in spite of three hearing notices given to the assessee on 06.01.2021, 11.04.2022 and 04.05.2023, the assessee neither appeared nor sought for any adjournment which has resulted in passing the above exparte order.

Ld. Counsel Ms. Kinjal Shah appearing for the assessee brought to our notice to Form No. 35 (statutory appeal Form before Ld. CIT(A)] wherein communication e-mail address is shown as rnasso@gmail.com. Whereas the Ld. CIT(A) sent the hearing notices to e-mail address of the assessee on the ITBA Portal namely ankit10@rnasso.in and secondary e-mail id nitinshah400@gmail.com. Thus the assessee pleaded no communication were sent to the e-mail address as mentioned in Form No. 35. Thus the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside and assessee’s prepared to argue the case on merits with supporting documents.

Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar appearing for the Revenue could not contravent the above submission of the assessee.

Taking note of the above facts on record, we also noticed in Form No. 35 that the assessee categorically stated “no” to the column “Whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail?”. Thus in our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) has not sent physical hearing notice 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 Page No 3 Nitinchandra Subhashchandra Shah vs. DCIT 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 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.

NITINCHANDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), VADODARA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments