BHAVESHBHAI PRABHUDASBHAI KOTECHA, RAJKOT V. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), RAJKOT

ITA 295/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4396 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHKUMARPANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIMEHULRANPURA

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , राजकोटनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, RAJKOTBENCH,RAJKOT (ConductedthroughE-Court) BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.295/RJT/2023 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt.Year:2010-2011 ShriBhaveshPrabhudasbhaiKotecha, 231,GuruprasadSociety, B/h.PDMCollege, GondalRoad, Rajkot-360004. PAN:AKBPK0478R Vs.I.T.O, Ward-3(1)(3), Rajkot. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriMehulRanpura,A.R Revenueby:ShriAshishKumarPandey,Sr.DR सुिणाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:28/12/2023 घोवणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:05/01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: Thecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheassesseeagainst theorderoftheLd.CommissionerofIncomeTax,(Appeals),Rajkotarisinginthe matteroforderpassedunderSection143(3)r.w.s.147oftheIncomeTaxAct, 1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear 2010-11. 2.Attheoutset,wefindthatLd.CIT(A),hasconfirmedtheorderoftheAO ex-partetotheassessee.AspertheLd.CIT(A),therewereissuedseveralnotices requiringtheasseseetofurnishthenecessarydetailsbuttherewasnocompliance. Accordingly,theLd.CIT(A),wasoftheviewthattheappealfiledbytheassessee ITANo.295/Rjt/2023 A.Y.2010-11 2 isnotmaintainable.Inholdingso,Ld.CIT(A),hasreferredtovariousjudgments ofHon’bleCourtsincorporatedinpage3ofhisorder. 3.Besidestheabove,theLd.CIT(A)onmeritheldthattheassesseehasnot broughtanythingonrecordcontrarytothefindingsoftheAO.Therefore,theLd. CIT(A),upheldtheassessmentorder. 4.TheLd.ARbeforeussubmittedthattheassesseehasnotreceivedany noticeissuedbytheLd.CIT(A),andthereforetheassesseecouldnotmakethe necessarycompliance.TheLd.ARtothiseffecthasalsofiledtheaffidavitofthe assessee.Accordingly,Ld.ARprayedtorestorethemattertothefileofLd.CIT(A), forfreshadjudicationaspertheprovisionoflaw. 5.Onthecontrary,theLd.DRsubmittedthatallthenoticesissuedbytheLd. CIT(A)areavailableontheincome-taxportalandthereforetheassesseeafterthe appealfilingshouldhavebeenvigilantenoughtoknowthestatusofthesameon Income-taxportalsoastofindouttheproceedingsinitiatedbytheLd.CIT(A). However,theLd.DRlefttheissueatthediscretionofthebench. 6.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Admittedly,therewasnon-compliancebythe assesseeinresponsetothenoticesissuedbytheLd.CIT(A).Nevertheless,what wefindfromthestatementoffactsfiledalongwiththememoofappealinForm No.35filedbeforeLd.CIT(A)thattheamountofcashdepositedinthebank accountoftheassesseerelates/pertaintotheloansdisbursedbyKotakMahindra PrimeLimited.Assuch,thecashdepositsinthebankaccountoftheassessee wereofthepartieswhohaveborrowedmoneyfromKotakMahindraPrimeLimited whichwassubsequentlytransferredintherespectiveloanaccountmaintained withthebank.However,whatwefindisthisthattheLd.CIT(A)hasnot consideredthestatementoffactsfiledbytheassesseebeforehim. ITANo.295/Rjt/2023 A.Y.2010-11 3 6.1Bethatasitmaybe,therewasachangeintheemailaddressofthe assesseeasevidentfromtheaffidavitfiledbytheassessee.Therelevantportion oftheaffidavitisreproducedasunder: 6.0Ihavebeenissuedanoticesu/s250oftheActbyLd.CommissionerofIncome- tax(Appeals),NationalFacelessAppealCentre,Delhi[CIT(A)]Thesaidnoticeswere issuedonlinethroughITBAPortal,whichappearstobeservedonane-mailaddress *[e-mail]".Since,thee-mailaddressonwhichtheimpugnednoticeswere servedisbelongingtomyprevioustaxconsultantwhoneverintimatedmeaboutsuch notices,andIremainedunawareaboutissuanceofsuchnoticesofhearingsissuedbythe Ld.CIT(A)Thus,atthetimeoffilingappealbeforeLd.CIT(A).1haveupdatedmyemail IDinFormNo.35as"[e-mail]"whichemailIdhavealsobeen changedagainafterleavingjobwithKotakMahindraPrimeLtdto "[e-mail]"inIncometaxdepartment'sportalbeforefewyearsand theupdatede-mailaddressisalsoreflectingincontactdetailsoftheportal.However,no e-mailsoranyintimationofnoticeshavebeenreceivedonupdatede-mailID. 7.0Becauseofthereasonasstatedabovethereisnon-complianceofnoticesof hearingissuedbytheLd.CIT(A).Non-complianceisnotintentionalbutbecauseofthe inadvertentcircumstancesasstatedabove. 6.2Consideringthereasongivenintheaffidavit,wefindthattherewas genuinereasonwhichpreventedtheasseseetocomplytothenoticesissuesby theLd.CIT(A).Accordingly,intheinterestjusticeandfairplay,weareinclinedto restoretheissuetothefileoftheLd.CIT(A)forfreshadjudicationasperthe provisionsoflaw.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheasseseeisallowedforthe statisticalpurposes. 7.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedforthestatistical purposes. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/01/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (WASEEMAHMED) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/01/2024 Manish,Sr.PSTRUECOPY