Case Law Details
Conscient Infrastructure P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The case of Conscient Infrastructure P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) addresses the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal due to procedural errors in notice service by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The dispute arose from an ex-parte decision by the CIT(A), dismissing the appeal for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee argued that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, contrary to the one specified in Form No. 35. This discrepancy led to the non-receipt of critical communications, impeding the assessee’s ability to respond. The appellant provided evidence, including a notice dated 16.02.2024, highlighting the error and sought restoration of the appeal for a fair hearing.
In response, the revenue department defended the order, stating that ample opportunities were provided to the assessee, who failed to respond to most of the notices. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) acknowledged the procedural lapse in sending notices to the wrong email address and emphasized the need for a fair opportunity to the assessee. The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing that notices be served on the correct email ID as per Form No. 35. The assessee has been directed to promptly respond to these notices during the renewed proceedings.
This decision underscores the importance of proper procedural adherence in tax litigation to ensure equitable treatment for taxpayers. By restoring the appeal, the ITAT aims to rectify procedural gaps and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 14.05.2024, for assessment year 2017-18.
2. Shri Saurav Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings has dismissed appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR submits that the notices issued by the CIT(A) except one, were never served on the assessee. The CIT(A) has been issuing notices on wrong email-id. He pointed that as per Form no. 35 the email-id given for service of notice was gupta@conscient.in, whereas notices were sent to the assessee by the CIT(A) at ajay.gupta@conscient.in . He prayed that the assessee has prima facie good case on merits and if appeal is restored back to the CIT(A), the assessee would be able to substantiate merits in this case before the First Appellate Authority.
3. Per contra, Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. He submitted that ample opportunity was given to assessee by the CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A).
4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee on five occasions. The assesse responded to only notice and sought adjournment. On the other four occasions there was no response from the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed on record a copy of notice dated 16.02.2024 to show that the notices were being sent on wrong email-id. Hence, the same were not received by the assessee. Without commenting on merits of the issues raised in appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore appeal to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with The CIT(A) shall issue notice on the email-id provided by the assessee in Form no. 35. The assessee on service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.
5. In the result, impugned order is set side and appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 20th day of November, 2024.
Author Bio
