VIKAS AGARWAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-54(5), NEW DELHI

Heard and perused the record.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred as “AR”) pointed out the fact that Ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal without adequate opportunity of hearing and for that ground no.2 has been specifically raised.

Ld. DR, however, supported the findings of Ld. First Appellate Authority mentioning that in the order Ld. First Appellate Authority has mentioned the fact that on eight occasions notices have been issued.

However, what comes up is that assessee has not been served by any postal or substituted means, but notices have been sent on the Email Id provided in Form No.35.

Ld. AR has submitted that the Email Id was of the professional who had filed the appeal and for that reason assessee was not duly informed.

We are of the considered view that although in Form No.35 assessee had provided Email address for communication but when the Ld. First Appellate Authority issued first notice by Email on 15.12.2018 and thereafter issued Emails on seven occasions through the year 2019-20, 2021-22 then recourse of attempting to serve the assessee on the postal address would have served the end of justice. Thus, we consider it an appropriate case to restore the issues on merits to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority with a direction to serve the assessee on the following addresses:

“B-8, Netaji Subhash Marg Darya Ganj, New Delhi Delhi-110002, Email Id : gambhirpk7@gmail.com Mobile No. : 9810220294”

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.