SUNITA ASHOKBHAI SHARMA,RAJKOT V. ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 567/RJT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sunita Ashokbhai Sharma against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially delayed due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay convincing and admitted the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal noted that both lower authorities had passed their orders in ex parte proceedings without providing a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the need for adherence to the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26363 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL RANPURA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 567/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Sunita Ashokbhai Sharma, At Maliyasan, B/h Kanaiya Hotel, Maliyasan, Dist.-Rajkot-360003 Vs. The I.T.O., Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot. èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CADPS 0576 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Respondent by Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”], dated 08/11/2023, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short ‘the AO”) u/s 147, r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 22/03/2022. 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee, has submitted that there is delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay, explaining the sufficient casue. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, ITA 567/Rjt/2024 Sunita Ashokbhai Sharma Vs ITO Page | 2 explain the reasons for delay, stating that the email id registered with income tax department is [e-mail]. However, on accessing the income tax portal, upon receiving recovery notices from department, it is gathered that the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, appellate orders were appeared to be served on some email id [e-mail] ,which is not at all belonging to appellant or her family member or her tax consultant (copies of screenshot of income tax department’s portal are attached at page No. 3 to 5 of the paper book). Thus, the notices and appellate order were sent to above stated incorrect email id. Due to the above reasons all the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, remained unattended and appellate proceedings finalized ex-parte by the ld. CIT(A), in faceless appellate proceedings. 3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue has raised objection about condonation of delay and would submit that such huge delay should not be condoned on such flimsy grounds. The assessee does not deserve any leniency at this stage. Hence, the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed. 4. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have also gone through the reasons given by the assessee for condonation of delay. We find that the email id registered with income tax department is [e-mail]. However, on accessing the income tax portal, upon receiving recovery notices from department, it was gathered by the assessee that the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act and appellate orders were appeared to be served on some other email id [e-mail] ,which is not, at all, related to assessee or her family member or her tax consultant. Thus, the notices and appellate order were sent to above stated incorrect email id. Due to the which, all ITA 567/Rjt/2024 Sunita Ashokbhai Sharma Vs ITO Page | 3 the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act remained unattended/unserved. We note that the reasons given by the assessee, and the sufficient cause explained by the assessee, are found to be convincing and these reasons would constitute reasonable and sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing appeal, therefore, I condone the delay of 216 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 5. On merit of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the lower authorities ( AO and CIT) have passed their orders, in ex parte proceedings, without providing reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, therefore, the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, on merit. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue, opposed the prayer for remitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer and would submit that the assessee’s approach during assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings were casual in a nature and assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities, therefore, appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 7. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have perused the material on record. Since, we have condoned the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal and also noted that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order, as per mandate of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. That is, there is no adjudication by the ld. CIT(A) on merit. We also find that both the lower authorities have passed their orders in ex- parte proceedings, therefore, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We note ITA 567/Rjt/2024 Sunita Ashokbhai Sharma Vs ITO Page | 4 that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interests of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future and not to take any adjournment without any valid reason. The assessee is also directed to submit all the documents, evidences and replies as soon as possible without any further delay. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced on 24/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot *Ranjan Ǒदनांक/ Date:24/12/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot "