Shri Mangalam Traders-1 Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
ITAT Raipur held that there were justifiable reasons for the assessee firm of having remained unaware about the on-going appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals). Thus, failure to participate resulted into ex-parte order. Accordingly, matter restored back for fresh adjudication.
Facts- During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee firm was one of the beneficiary of bogus purchase bills of Rs.79,64,000/- procured from four tainted parties. As the assessee firm had failed to substantiate the authenticity of the aforesaid purchase transactions, therefore, the A.O after rejecting its books of account u/s.145(3) of the Act disallowed 25% of the subject bogus purchases and worked out a disallowance of Rs.19,91,000/-. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 26.12.2018, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee firm at Rs.20,98,730/-.
Aggrieved the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the ADDL/JCIT(A), Udaipur but without success. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that I find substance in the contention advanced by the Ld. AR that as the assessee firm in the memorandum of appeal filed before the CIT(Appeals) in “Form 35” had specifically opted out of service of notices/communications from its office through email, therefore, it had remained unaware about the on- going appellate proceedings for which notices were issued electronically through ITBA and, thus, for the said reason had failed to participate in the same. As stated by the Ld. AR and, rightly so, though the assessee/appellant in its memorandum of appeal filed with the CIT(Appeals), i.e. in “Form-35” had specifically opted out of service of notices/communications from his office through email but on all the four occasions the notices intimating the fixation of appeal i.e. on 30.12.2020, 13.02.2024, 22.02.2024 and 07.10.2024 were issued electronically through ITBA. Accordingly, I concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that there were justifiable reasons for the assessee firm of having remained unaware about the on-going appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) due to which it had failed to participate in the same. Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case which had resulted to passing of an ex-parte order by the CIT(Appeals), I am of the view that as the assessee-appellant for no fault on its part had remained divested of a sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to his file for fresh adjudication.
