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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 84/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2023AY 2014-15Bench: SH. G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not duly informed as notices were sent to the professional's email address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority without adequate opportunity of hearing. Notices were sent via email to the professional's address, not the assessee's postal address.

What were the issues?

Whether the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Shri K Sampath, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.12.2023Pronounced: 21.12.2023

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM : The Assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred as “NFAC”), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) being Appeal No. 18/10455/2016-17, pertaining to AY 2014-15.

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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:

1.

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

8.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2023

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →