UJAI AHMAD,AMROHA V. ITO,1(1), MORADABAD

ITA 4909/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ujair Ahmad, the appellant, contesting an assessment order concerning cash deposits amounting to INR 55,50,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The initial appeal was adjudicated ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-response from the assessee, attributed to incorrect email notifications. The Tribunal found that the notices were sent to an outdated email address, leading to a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity to be heard.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34235 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VICKY KAPOOR
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

"ITA No.4909/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4909/Del/2024 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Ujair Ahmad S/o-Shabbir Ahmad Delhi Road, Joya, Amroha Uttar Pradesh-244221 PAN-AOQPA6007D vs ITO Ward-1(1) Moradabad APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Vicky Kapoor, CA Respondent by Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2025 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The instant appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee seeking to assail the First Appellate order dated 23.08.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 25.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the additions towards cash deposits of INR 55,50,000/- under s. 69A of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee adverted to the first appellate order passed under s. 250 of the Act for AY 2015- 16 in question and submitted that the notices have been sent in the months of May 2023, June 2024 & July 2024 by e-mail which were purportedly not responded by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel thus submitted that the CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal in the absence of the assessee ex-parte. ITA No.4909/Del/2024 Page | 2 4. In this regard, Ld. Counsel pointed out that as per appeal memo in Form-35, the e-mail for service of e-notices was given as ‘[e-mail]’. The CIT(A) however probably served the notice at the e-mail ID of the erstwhile Accountant of the assessee read as ‘[e-mail]’. Thus none of the three notices were received by the assessee owing to wrong e-mail ID. The Ld. Counsel thus submitted that lack of opportunity due to non-service of notices at the correct e-mail address has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Ld. Counsel thus urged for suitable relief in the matter. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue referred to and relied upon the first appellate order. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the first appellate order as well as the assessment order. As per para 4 of the first appellate order passed under s. 250 of the Act, it appears that three notices were issued by the CIT(A) to discuss the grievance raised by the assessee. However, it is not known whether the notices have been actually served or not. The assessee claims to be not privy to any of such notices. Non-compliance of such notices is resulted in ex-parte order by the CIT(A). 7. Needless to say that judicial propriety demands that a fair opportunity is given to the assessee to enable it to explain its case. The breach of sacrosanct principles of natural justice is fundamental and goes to the root of the process of framing assessment/appellate order. The first appellate order passed without opportunity thus deserves to be set aside. The assessee pleads for restoration of appeal to the file of the AO instead of CIT(A) to enable him to produce documentary evidences to corroborate factual contentions. The plea of the assessee deserves to be viewed in benign manner having regard to the factual matrix of the case. 8. Hence in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and to set right procedural impropriety, we consider it expedient to set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of AO for denovo ITA No.4909/Del/2024 Page | 3 assessment in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also cautioned to attend the assessment proceedings diligently without any demur. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "