9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 880 - AT - Income TaxValidity of ex-parte order of CIT(A) passed u/s 250 - denial of reasonable opportunity to assessee - CIT(A) issued the notice in the wrong email account - HELD THAT - Several notices are issued in the wrong email address which was deemed to be absence of service on the assessee and the assessee has no information about the notice of the appellate authority. Finally, the notice was correctly issued in the email as mentioned by the assessee and the assessee filed an adjournment petition for filing the evidence before ld. CIT(A). Further, the Ld.AR mentioned that the employee, who was entrusted with the matter has already left the job. As reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee which is gross violation of the natural justice. The assessee was prevented from submitting the evidence before the ld.CIT(A) in due appeal proceedings. We fully relied on the order of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) 2016 (5) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . We dismiss the appeal order and direct to remand back the matter to file of the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order. Both the rival parties have accepted the direction of the bench. We are not expressing any view on merit which will impair the appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18 based on denial of reasonable opportunity to assessee. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT(A), Kanpur, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment was completed with an addition under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. The assessee incurred additional expenses for earning dividend income and disallowed an amount under the same provision. The appeal order was passed ex parte by the CIT(A) as the notice was issued to the wrong email account of the assessee. The assessee contended that several notices were sent to the wrong email address, leading to a lack of service on the assessee. The assessee filed an adjournment petition before the CIT(A) to submit evidence, but the matter was upheld without considering the evidence. The AR relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court emphasizing the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of appeals on merits and not dismiss them for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the reasonable opportunity was denied to the assessee, violating natural justice principles, and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order, ensuring the assessee's right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and observed that the denial of a reasonable opportunity to the assessee was a gross violation of natural justice. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. The Tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merit of the case to allow the appeal proceedings before the CIT(A) to proceed without prejudice. The direction to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) was accepted by both parties, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case in the set-aside appeal proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and ensuring that the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity to be heard in appeal proceedings. The decision highlighted the duty of the CIT(A) to dispose of appeals on merits and not dismiss them for non-prosecution, in line with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
