SHOREBIRDS LEISURE PVT LTD,BANGALORE V. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 2/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shorebirds Leisure Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring a loss, which was scrutinized, leading to disallowances and additions to income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance of the assessee, attributed to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present their case and thus decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471044 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Assessee Lawyers: G. VENKATESH

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 02/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Shorebirds Leisure Pvt. Ltd., No. 12, Service Road, Domlur, Bangalore – 560 071. PAN: AATCS0496A Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri G. Venkatesh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the ex-parte order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 31/05/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 520 days for which the assessee filed an application to condone the said delay in which the assessee submitted that the hearing notices were not received by the assessee since the same were sent to the other email ID which does not related to the assessee and the auditor also not informed about the hearing dates and therefore the assessee has no knowledge about the appeal hearings. The Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 02/Bang/2025 assessee further submitted that only when the penalty notice was received, the assessee verified the email and found that one notice was available and thereafter the assessee contacted the present counsel and the appeal was filed with a delay of 520 days. The assessee also furnished the copies of the screenshot of all the email communications and prayed to condone the said delay. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the assessee and also the reasons stated in the condonation application along with the copies of the screenshot of all the email communications sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and found that most of the notices were sent to another email ID even though the assessee had mentioned a different email ID in form 35. We have also perused the penalty notice issued by the assessing officer and we are satisfied that the assessee had valid reasons for filing the appeal not in time. We therefore, in order to render substantial justice, condone the said delay of 520 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and proceeded to take up the main appeal on merits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company carrying on the business of sporting and other recreational activities and for the A.Y. 2014-15, they filed their return of income declaring a total loss of Rs. 93,37,009/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and during the assessment proceedings, the AO sought for the various details for which the assessee filed their replies and thereafter the assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act in which the disallowances as well as the additions were made to the income. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the disallowance as well as the additions made by the AO is not correct and prayed to allow the appeal. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte since the assessee had not responded to any of the hearing notices. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the said ex-parte order. Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 02/Bang/2025 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the various hearing notices were sent to a different email ID even though the assessee had furnished another email ID in form 35. The Ld.AR also filed the copies of the screenshots of the notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to represent the case before the Ld.CIT(A). 7. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the assessee was decided by the Ld.CIT(A) ex-parte on the reason that the assessee had not appeared. Therefore the Ld CIT had not decided the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. We have also gone through the copies of the screenshots furnished by the assessee and also we have perused form 35 and found that most of the hearing notices were issued to the email ID i.e. [e-mail] whereas the assessee had given the email ID in form 35 as [e-mail] . 10. Therefore we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the appellate order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and therefore we are setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the same to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merits after hearing the assessee. We also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to communicate the hearing notices to the email ID mentioned in form 35 as well as in form 36. Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 02/Bang/2025 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 26th February, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore "