DR.(MRS.) M. INBAMANI,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-7(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1924/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani against the ex parte orders for the Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. The primary contention was the violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not properly notified due to the use of an incorrect email ID belonging to a former tax professional, leading to non-receipt of notices and subsequent ex parte orders. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, found merit in the assessee's arguments and directed a de novo assessment, emphasizing the need for proper communication and opportunity for the assessee to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39053 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOWTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N. QUADIR HUSEYN
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी अिमताभ शु\u0018ा, लेखा सद\t क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1922 to 1924/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani, No.29, Thirukural Main Road, Sri Sakthi Nagar, Annanur, Chennai-600 109. v. The ITO, NCW-7(3), Chennai. [PAN: AAIPM 4625 K] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.N. Quadir Huseyn, Adv. \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.09.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 20.05.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2016-17 to 2018-19. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) and the AO has passed ex parte orders and therefore, he ITA Nos.1922 to 1924/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani :: 2 :: submitted that there is gross violation of natural justice; and since, the AO has not given proper opportunity to the assessee before passing the assessment order, citing the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC), pleaded that the assessment may be restored back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that cost may be imposed on the assessee and the assessee should be directed to be diligent and participate in the assessment proceedings. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without hearing the assessee and the AO has also passed an ex parte order. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee didn’t receive the notices since the registered e-mail IDs was not that of the assessee, but that of the erstwhile ITP. The ITP being not techno-savvy/conversant with the digital communications, wasn’t able to open/respond to the notices digitally communicated/issued by both the authorities which led to passing of the impugned order as well as the Assessment Order passed ex parte qua assessee. Since the assessee was not heard before the assessment was framed, there is violation of natural justice and therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ITA Nos.1922 to 1924/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani :: 3 :: case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore back the assessment to the file of the AO with a direction to frame the assessment de novo after hearing the assessee. Since there is negligence on the part of the assessee, cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed which the assessee should remit to the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon’ble Madras High Court, and produce necessary proof of depositing of the same before the AO and thereafter, the AO to frame the de novo assessment after hearing the assessee in accordance to law. The assessee is directed to be diligent and participate in the assessment proceedings by giving correct registered e-mail IDs and file written submissions/relevant documents before the AO and the AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee in respect of all the captioned assessment years. 5. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 13th day of November, 2024, in Chennai. Sd/- (अिमताभ शु\u0018ा) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 13th November, 2024. TLN, Sr.PS ITA Nos.1922 to 1924/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) Dr. (Mrs.) M. Inbamani :: 4 :: आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\r/Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ\r/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u001eफाईल/GF "