Veenus Jewellars Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Failure to Follow Specified Mode of Communication Invalidates Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: ITAT Hyderabad
The ITAT Hyderabad condoned a delay of 181 days on the ground that the CIT(A), NFAC failed to serve notices and the appellate order on the specific e-mail ID mandatorily furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35, thereby denying effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal reiterated that once an assessee clearly specifies the mode and address for communication, the appellate authority is legally bound to serve notices only in that specified manner, and any deviation vitiates the proceedings. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution was held to be procedurally unsustainable. On merits, the ITAT observed that additions were made on the basis of bank transactions allegedly pertaining to another firm and that supporting evidence could not be produced earlier due to lack of opportunity. Since the additional evidence went to the root of the matter, the same was admitted and the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting due opportunity. The appeal was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by M/s. Veenus Jewellars (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 31.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
