SAFFRON INC, MUMBAI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-31(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1169/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Saffron Inc against the order of the CIT(A), which was dismissed ex-parte without a hearing. The assessee contended that they did not receive the notices for the hearing due to a malfunctioning email, which was the reason for their non-appearance. The CIT(A) had issued four notices, but due to the technical issues with the email provided, the assessee was unaware of these notices. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and decided to set aside the ex-parte order and restore the case for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299307 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH D. GAIKWAD
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1169/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Saffron Inc B/7, Shivkrupa Apartment, Ground Floor, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. बिधम/ Vs. ITO-31(1)(1) Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ABEFS2784A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 10/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax/NFAC, Delhi dated 09.02.2023 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal ex-parte order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee could not appear/present submission before the Ld. CIT(A) because of non-receipt of notices of hearing, which caused the non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). In order to buttress this submission, assessee has filed an affidavit sworn by the partner [of the firm/assessee] Shri Vikas Naresh Jain wherein it has been stated that the email id furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) was [e-mail] and, since the email Id was dis-functional due to technical snag, Assessee by: Shri Sumit Mantri Revenue by: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR) ITA No.1169/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Saffron Inc. 2 assessee did not receive the notices [as asserted to have been forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A)]. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, the assessee was in the dark as to the issuance of notice of hearing by Ld. CIT(A) and could not present its submission on the date of hearing and so, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. And therefore, pleaded that impugned ex-parte order may be cancelled and the appeal restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR opposes the request of the Ld. AR and submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has given four (4) opportunities to the assessee, and since it failed to appear/furnish submissions/documents, the assessee should not be given second innings. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and not passed on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted to have issued four (4) notices; and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee, has dismissed the grounds of appeal without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee. Before us, the assessee has filed an affidavit of the partner of the assessee firm which shows that the assessee did not receive the notices due to the mal-functioning of the computer/email id furnished before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before us has given a new email Id in Form-36 [e-mail] and submitted that email Id [e-mail] was non-accessible [which was the email Id given before Ld. CIT(A)]. Thus, we find that there was a reasonable cause for assessee not receiving the notice of hearing. In ITA No.1169/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s. Saffron Inc. 3 such a scenario, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in accordance to section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) law and the assessee is directed to file written submission/relevant documents to substantiate/ support the grounds of appeal raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and request for hearing in accordance to law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31/07/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SING) (ABY T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 31/07/2023. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रवतवनवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपत प्रवत //True Copy// उि/सहधयक िंजीकधर /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai