RAMA RAO GUDIMELLA,WARANGAL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

ITA 505/HYD/2025

AI Insights

Shri Rama Rao Gudimella, the appellant, contested an ex parte order from the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed his appeal due to non-response to notices. The assessee argued that the notices were sent to an outdated email address, despite having provided a current one. The Tribunal found that the non-service of notice on the correct email address constituted a violation of natural justice, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653200 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHIN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A.V.RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.505/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2021-22) Shri Rama Rao Gudimella, Warangal. PAN: ALSPG7844D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 17/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 18/06/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by Shri Rama Rao Gudimella (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 16.01.2025 for the A.Y. 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.505/Hyd/2025 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee had filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 27.02.2024. ITA No.505/Hyd/2025 3 However, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) invited our attention to Form No. 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had specifically mentioned his email ID as [e-mail] for service of notices. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) had instead sent the notices to a different email ID, which although belongs to the assessee, is no longer in use. It was also submitted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only upon receipt of the demand notice from the Revenue authorities. The Ld. AR pleaded that the non-response to the notices was not intentional but due to genuine communication failure. He therefore prayed that in the interest of natural justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication ITA No.505/Hyd/2025 4 on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case and submit necessary documentary evidence. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the request for remand and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. On perusal of Form No. 35, we note that the assessee had clearly mentioned [e-mail] as the communication email ID for service of notices. However, from the copy of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), placed on record by the Ld. AR, it is evident that the notices were sent to a different email ID, which, though belonging to the assessee, was no longer in use. In our considered view, the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to present his case due to non-service of notice on the correct email ID. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is thus in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No.505/Hyd/2025 5 with a direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we also direct the assessee to extend full cooperation before the Ld. CIT(A) and not seek any unnecessary adjournment. In case of failure to comply, the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass order in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad. Dated: 18.06.2025. * Reddy gp Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Shri Rama Rao Gudimella, 17-10-60, Orus, Bodrai, Karimbada-506002 2. ITO, Ward-1, Warangal. 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, "