Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
O R D E R Per: Bench This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bangalore (‘CIT’ for short), dtd.30/03/2021 in respect of the assessee’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. We observe an Intimation dated 31/03/2021 by the CIT on record informing the assessee the Document Identification Number (DIN) of the impugned order, as well as of the same being dated 29/03/2021. The same, to be regarded a part of the said order, shall, if necessary, be referred to in this order.
Vide the impugned order, the ld. CIT, i.e., the competent authority, has set aside the impugned assessment, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to redo the assessment after making necessary enquiries on the several issues mentioned at para (AY 2015-16) Mohammed Haris v. CIT 2 (wrongly mentioned as para 3) of his order, after hearing the assessee. This is as the assessment in the first instance was made without doing so, rendering it for that reason erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Before us, the assessee’s case, through his ld. counsel, Shri Mohan, CA, was that due and proper opportunity had not been allowed by the competent authority before passing the impugned order, so that the same is itself inflicted by non- observance of the principles of natural justice, rendering it infirm for that reason, relying toward the same on an affidavit dated 01/2/2023 by the assessee-appellant making averments to that effect. This was upon the Bench requiring during hearing on 30/1/2023 the parties to adduce evidence/s in respect of the claim for non-grant of opportunity, made per his Ground 1. The Revenue would confirm the issue of notices of hearing on 04/03/2021 & 18/03/2021, further stating that the same as duly reflected in the assessee’s account on the Revenue’s portal, not disputed by Shri Mohan who, however, could not answer the query by the Bench, on perusing the affidavit, as to how could it be that no communication was received, either per email or through SMS, qua both the notices of hearing, i.e., 04/03/2021 (for 12/03/2021) and 18/03/2021 (for 23/03/2021) and, further, for both the primary and secondary addresses, with the intimation letters for both the notices of hearing being on record. This is as, being system driven, in case of system failure, as alleged, it would itself indicate non-transmission. Further, the very fact that SMS was admittedly received by the assessee’s counsel, Shri P. Sudhakaran, CA, on 25/3/2021, and that emails by him were sent to the Department on 26/3/2021, the same itself shows the system was functioning, and well. As it appears to us, the assessee, a non-resident, based at Dubai, may have given a local mobile number, and not verified his email account, as would be the case with his CA, Shri Sudhakaran. Upon this, Shri Mohan would pray for remittance back to the file of the competent authority in the interest of justice.