SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,FATEHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, FATEHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 August 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of notices by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) because they were sent to an incorrect email address. This resulted in ex-parte orders being passed by the CIT(A) without considering the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is valid when the assessee did not receive notices due to an incorrect email address. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"" एवं "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ to 314/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16 Smt. Parminder Kaur The ITO बनाम W/o Shri Sandeep Sachdeva, Ward-2, Fatehabad Ward No-8, Main Gali, Shyam Vihar, Haryana Fatehabad-125050, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ARCPS2241L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :

All the above appeal are filed by the Assessee against the respective orders of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon each dt. 29/01/20124 pertaining to Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2015-16.

2.

All these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

3.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that in all these cases, the order has been passed exparte by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the notices were sent by the office of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC on caarunkumar909@gmail.com which is not the email address of the assessee as so stated in Form No. 35 and our reference was drawn to the email address as mentioned in Form No. 35 wherein the assessee has provided the email address as sandysachdeva67@gmail.com. It was submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices so issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in terms of non-attendance and in not filing the necessary submissions which has resulted in passing of the ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi without even considering the merits of the case. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent her case and matter may accordingly be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

4.

The Ld. DR was heard, he did not raised any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh.

5.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record given the fact that the assessee did not received the notice issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC due to wrong email address which has resulted in passing of the ex-parte order and even there are no findings on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →