Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
CIT(A) Sent Email Notices Despite Assessee Requesting Otherwise—ITAT Restores Appeals with Costs- Assessee’s Non-Cooperation Attracts Cost, But Natural Justice Prevails
Ahmedabad Tribunal dealt with four appeals—two quantum & two penalty—arising from ex-parte orders of CIT(A)/NFAC. Assessee showed 30-day delay in filing appeals, explaining that CIT(A) sent hearing notices only by email despite Form 35 specifically requesting non-email communication, resulting in Assessee missing all four hearing dates. Tribunal noted that this was the second round, as earlier ITAT order dated 10.02.2023 had already remanded matters for decision on merits after CIT(A) rejected adjournment & dismissed appeals ex-parte. Tribunal observed that while there was non-cooperation by Assessee, natural justice required one more opportunity. To balance equities, Tribunal imposed cost of ₹10,000 per quantum appeal & ₹5,000 per penalty appeal, totalling ₹30,000, payable to the Income Tax Department within two weeks. On payment, JAO was directed to entertain Assessee’s additional documents filed under Rule 46A, provide opportunity of hearing & decide matters afresh on merits. Appeals allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
These four appeal are filed by the Assessee as against four separate appellate orders all dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 respectively.
