Pukhraj Shreemalji Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in the case of Pukhraj Shreemalji vs. ITO for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex parte, citing non-compliance by the assessee with the notices issued. The assessee contended that they never received these notices, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to present their case. The ITAT ruled that the absence of proof of service of notice warranted a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing an effective hearing, as mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which guarantees the appellant’s right to be heard in appeal proceedings. The CIT(A) had issued multiple notices via email but received no response from the assessee. However, there was no evidence confirming that the notices were successfully served. The ITAT noted that the principle of natural justice had not been upheld in this case, as the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard.
Proper service of notice is a prerequisite for ex parte proceedings as non-service of notice vitiates the proceedings, reinforcing that the burden of proof of service lies with the revenue authorities. Valid service of notice is an essential requirement before taking adverse action against an assessee. Applying these principles, the ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to establish proper notice service, rendering the order legally unsustainable.
