Habibali Kamrudin Vakil, Bhavnagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Bhavnagar

ITA 866/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9059 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Habibali Kamrudin Vakil Plot No. 3, Munivar Society, Opp. Vora Madresa, Bhadrod Gate, Mahuva-364296 District: Bhavnagar PAN: AFAPV2857D (Appellant) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri B.R. Popat, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 22-01-2024 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against exparte appellate order dated 15.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. ITA No. 866/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year 2016-17 I.T.A No. 866/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No Habibali Kamrudin Vakil vs. ITO 2 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee explained that he is an individual and engaged in poultry farming business in small town of Mahuva in Bhavnagar District and being a school drop-out not familiar with English language and email operations, he was total dependence on the issues relating to tax compliances only on the tax professionals. As the Tax Consultant given his email id for communication, so the hearing notices were not served on the assessee. Thus there is a delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal. 3. The Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar has no serious objection in condoning the delay. Therefore we hereby condone the delay of 74 days in filing the above appeal. 4. It is noticed from Form No. 35 that the assessee categorically stated “no” to the column “Whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail?”. However notices dated 07.01.2021, 11.06.2021, 21.04.2023 and 02.06.2023 were sent by Ld. CIT(A) by email and there was no response from the assessee. Therefore appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed exparte. It is seen from the appellate order, the physical appeal was filed by the assessee was then migrated to the National Faceless Appeal Centre and the Ld. NFAC has not sent physical hearing notices to the assessee. 5. Therefore in order to meet the ends of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to issue the physical hearing notice to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits by giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should I.T.A No. 866/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No Habibali Kamrudin Vakil vs. ITO 3 make use of this opportunity by producing all the required documents before Ld. CIT(A) for passing fresh appellate order on merits of the case. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-01-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 24/01/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद