PREM LATA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1178/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 December 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the NFAC. The assessee contended that notices were sent to an incorrect email address, ajaybansal179@gmail.com, instead of the correct one, ajaybansal79@gmail.com.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the first appellate authority was justified when notices were sent to an incorrect email address.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 11/12/2023Pronounced: 11/12/2023

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prem Lata Bansal Vs. ITO 2778/7, Bhatnagar Motor Ward- 35 (2) Market, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Delhi-110006 PAN No.AAEPB2821J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Prakash Sinha, Advocate Sh. Kartik Garg, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 11/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 20.03.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y.2017-18.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that no notice was effectively served upon the assessee and the first appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal exparte.

3.

The bone of contention is the following chart of notices send to the assessee on the mentioned e-mail address :- Notice Notice was issued ajaybansal179@gmail.com 1 Hearing 07.01.2021 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com 2 Hearing 10.06.2021 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com 3 Hearing 17.03.2022 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com 4 Hearing 05.08.2022 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com 5 Hearing 16.09.2022 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com 6 Hearing 28.09.2022 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com Hearing 07.10.2022 Delivered Notice ajaybansal179@gmail.com Hearing 09.01.2023 Delivered Notice

4.

The contention of the assessee is that the e-mail Id on which the notices were sent has been mentioned as ajaybansal179@gmail.com where as the correct email address is ajaybansal79@gmail.com which is mentioned in form No.35 filed before the CIT(A).

5.

On this undisputed fact we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The notice may be sent to ajaybansal79@gmail.com. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 11.12.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →