NIHAL BASARAM PINJANI , AMRAVATI V. Pr. CIT -1, NAGPUR

ITA 39/NAG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0063 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP HEDAOO
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH,NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.39/Nag/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Nihal Basarmal Pinjani, Prop. of M/s. Nisha Garments, City Land Complex, Nandgaon Peth, Amravati Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur PAN :ABEPP2976K (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/02/2021 passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 [in short ‘the learned PCIT’] for assessment year 2016-17 in terms of section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that impugned order has been passed exparte qua Appellant by Sh. Shankarlal Rathi, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Hedaoo, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28.10.2021 Date of pronouncement 18.01.2022 2 ITA No.39/Nag./2021 the assessee. He submitted that only notice for invoking 263 proceedings was issued by the learned PCIT on 04/02/2021 that too by way of email only, whereas the assessee did not know computer operation and the part-time computer operator engaged by the assessee failed to communicate to the assessee regarding receipt of any such notice. He submitted that due to the reason the assessee could represent before the Ld. PCIT. He submitted willingness of the assessee to appear before the Ld. PCIT and submitted that in view of the above facts, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. PCIT for deciding afresh. The Ld. Departmental Representative objected to restoring the matter on the ground that notice under section 263 of the Act was duly served on the assessee through email, and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the learned PCIT in deciding the issue inex parte manner. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The learned PCIT in para 5 of the impugned order has mentioned as under: “5. Response of assessee Although notice u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 was served to the assessee but so far till the passing of this order, there is no compliance or submission by the assessee either online nor in Dak. On checking online it is seen that notice was duly served and delivered on the given email address of the assessee. Therefore, it can be concluded that the assessee has nothing to say against the proposed revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The matter is time barring in nature, hence order is passed on the basis of available material on record.” 3 ITA No.39/Nag./2021 3.1 Thus, it is evident that only notice which was sent to the assessee was through email. No other reminder was either sent to the assessee or notice through mode other than email was sent to the assessee. The Learned Counsel has pleaded before us fact of computer illiteracy of the assessee and dependence on part-time computer operator. It is admitted that the assessee is running a proprietary concern and not having sufficient set up for communication through email. Moreover, the period during which notice was sent is pandemic period and negligence on the part of part-time computer operator also cannot be ruled out. In view of the non-compliance, the assessee could not represent before the Ld. PCIT during proceeding under section 263 of the Act and order has been passed without the submission or explanation from the side of the assessee. 3.2 In view of above facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of Ld PCIT with the direction to the assessee to appear before the Ld. PCIT within three month of receipt of this order and file all the necessary submission and supporting documentary evidences and cooperate in proceedings before the learned PCIT. The Ld. PCIT shall preferably dispose off the proceedings within three months from the filing of submission and documentary evidence by the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for the statistical purposes. 4 ITA No.39/Nag./2021 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated: 18 th January, 2022. RK/-(DTDC) Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order (A.R./Sr. P.S./P.S.) ITAT, Nagpur