Case Law Details
R.K. Sipani Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The appeal in R.K. Sipani Foundation vs. ITO was brought before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) dated 30.07.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. The central issue raised by the assessee was the improper service of notice regarding the hearing of the appeal. The assessee’s counsel pointed out that the Form 35, submitted to the CIT(A), explicitly stated that notices of hearing should not be sent via email. Despite this, the CIT(A)’s office issued a notice via email, which the assessee claimed not to have received. The assessee further indicated an intention to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which had not been considered by the CIT(A).
The ITAT reviewed the facts and observed that the CIT(A)’s office failed to provide evidence showing that the notice was sent through any mode other than email. Additionally, it was found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal without addressing the merits of the case, which was deemed incorrect under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Given these irregularities, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed that the appeal be heard on its merits, with the opportunity for the assessee to present additional evidence as required. The assessee was also advised to regularly check the designated email ID for future notices. As a result, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, ordering the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee for a fair hearing.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
Present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 30.07.2024 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NAFC/S/250/204-25/1067146710(1) for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. The assessee has raised 10 grounds of appeal. However, at the time of representation of the appeal, the counsel for the assessee has submitted that the matter requires fresh consideration at the end of ld. CIT(A) as no notice of hearing issued by the office of ld. CIT(A) has ever been served upon the assessee. Ld. Counsel further drawn the attention of Bench towards the Form 35, in which it was categorically mentioned that no notice of hearing shall be issued via e-mail.
3. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the authorities below.
4. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that in the column of personal information of Form 35, the assessee has categorically mentioned that no notice of hearing shall be issued via mail. Further, the office of ld. CIT(A) has not able to establish whether any notice of hearing has been sent via other mode. It is also apparent from the order of ld. CIT(A) that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal without dealing with the merits of the case, which in our view is not the correct approach as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We also observe that the assessee was intending to file additional evidences before the CIT-(A) in terms of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. This fact is coming out from the perusal of column number 12 of Form-35. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) and direct him to decide the appeal on merits. We also note that the counsel of the assessee has assured that now the assessee will check the e-mail ID as mentioned in the portal of the Income Tax Department and comply with the notices of hearing. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention that the Ld CIT(A) will provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th Dec, 2024
Author Bio
