Harwinder Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The assessee appealed against the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2012–13. Multiple grounds were raised, including that the appellate order was ex parte, notices were sent only by email and not received, the matter was decided without examining merits, the reassessment under Sections 147/148 was wrongly upheld, approval for reopening was granted mechanically, and the addition of ₹14,83,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A was unjustified.
According to the Registry’s report, the appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 294 days. The assessee sought condonation, stating that the CIT(A) sent hearing notices to an incorrect email address, preventing him from receiving any communication. No physical service of notices occurred. As a result, the assessee remained unaware of the proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. An affidavit supporting these claims was filed. It was also submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances the assessee could not appear before the Assessing Officer, and requested an opportunity to present the case afresh.
The Departmental Representative relied on the findings of the lower authorities.
After considering submissions, the Tribunal held that the interest of justice required granting the assessee an opportunity to present the case before the Assessing Officer. However, this relief was made conditional on the assessee depositing ₹5,000 in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and providing proof of payment to the AO. The Tribunal therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
