GURU PRASAD SANGHI,HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1346/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Guru Prasad Sanghi against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the improper delivery of notices to an unrelated email address, leading to an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly notified of the appellate proceedings, as the notices were sent to '[e-mail]' instead of the correct email '[e-mail]'. Consequently, the Tribunal directed a re-examination of the case by the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785721 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURPREET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1346/Hyd/2025 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Guru Prasad Sanghi, Hyderabad. PAN: AGQPS1700F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती ɮवारा/Assessee by: Sri S K Gupta, Advocate राजè व ɮवारा/Revenue by: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12/06/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO 15/05/2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: 1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable on facts or in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-pursuance as all the notices were sent to an unrelated email Id \"[e-mail]\". 3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the notice issued u/s 148 was bad in law in as much as the mandated procedure laid out u/s 148A was not followed. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition estimated at 35.90% of the income which is without any basis. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in in confirming the addition of cash deposits of Rs. 54,85,148/- which is already part of the turnover declared by the assessee. 6. In the facts and circumstance of the case the assessment proceedings are bad in law in as much as proceedings were initiated by JAO and completed by NFAC. This view is supported by many judicial orders. 7. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the turnover of Rs. 16569703/- which was subject matter of reassessment proceedings was already considered in scrutiny order passed u/s 143(3) on 23-12-2018. 8. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. Succinctly stated, the AO initiated proceedings in the case of the assessee under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 28/07/2022 was issued by the AO. 3. The AO vide order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 15/05/2023, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 1,68,79,572/- after making two additions, viz., (i) addition of estimated net profit on undisclosed turnover: Rs.1,05,94,424/-; and (ii) addition of unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act: Rs. 54,85,148/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Although the assessee was put to notice about the fixation of the appeal on five occasions ie., notices dated 19/09/2024, 04/10/2024, 17/10/2024, 25/10/2024 and 07/05/2024, but had failed to participate in the appellate proceedings, therefore, the CIT(A) held a conviction that he was not interested to pursue the appeal. Accordingly, the CIT(A) finding no infirmity in the decision taken by the AO sustained the addition of Rs. 1,60,79,572/- and dismissed the appeal. 5. Assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. Sri S.K. Gupta, Advocate, the Learned Authorized Representative (for short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the assessee was never validly put to notice on either of the five occasions on which the appeal is stated to have been fixed for hearing, therefore, for no fault on his part he had been divested of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) and defend his Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO case. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that though the assessee in his Memorandum of Appeal, ie., “Form- 35” had specifically provided his email address ie., “[e-mail]” but a perusal of the CIT(A) order revealed that all the notices intimating the fixation of hearing of the appeal were delivered to the email ie., “[e-mail]”. The Ld. AR submitted that as the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal were dropped in an unrelated email Id viz., “[e-mail]”, therefore, the assessee remained oblivion about the appellate proceedings and had suffered the dismissal of the appeal vide an ex-parte order. 7. Per contra, Sri Gurpreet Sinch, the Learned Departmental Representative (for short “Ld. DR”) supported the orders of the lower authorities. However, the Ld. DR failed to rebut the assessee’s counsel claim that the notices intimating the fixation of the appeal before the CIT(A) were dropped by the latter’s office in an unrelated email Id i.e., “[e-mail]”. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts involved in the present appeal in the back drop of the orders of the lower authorities. 9. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that all the five notices intimating the fixation of hearing of the appeal ie., notices dated 19/09/2024, 04/10/2024, 17/10/2024, 25/10/2024 and 07/05/2024 were dropped/delivered to the email account, viz., “[e-mail]”. On a perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal, ie., “Form-35” we find that the email address provided by the assessee is “[e-mail]”. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, we concur with the Ld. AR that as neither of the notices intimating the fixation of hearing of the appeal was delivered/dropped in the email address provided by the assessee ie., “[e-mail]”, but on the contrary had been delivered at unrelated email account i.e., “[e-mail]”, therefore, the assessee for no fault on his part had remained divested of an opportunity of participating in the appellate proceedings and had suffered an ex-parte dismissal of his appeal. We are unable to persuade ourselves to Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO subscribe to the dismissal of the present appeal in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, and, thus, set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to readjudicate the appeal. Needless to say, CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the set-aside proceedings. 11. Before parting, we may herein observe that the CIT(A)’s office shall hereinafter forward the notices intimating the fixation of hearing of the appeal in the course of the set aside proceedings at the email address opted by the assessee in Form-35 ie., [e-mail]. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025. Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 29th October, 2025 OKK / SPS Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 1346/Hyd/2025 Guru Prasad Sanghi vs. ITO Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Guru Prasad Sanghi, 22-7-267, Dewan Devadi, Pahergatty, Charminar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500002. 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Signature Tower, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana-500084. 3 The Pr.CIT, Hyderabad 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad. Printed from counselvise.com "