Case Law Details
B. M. Sarin Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
Inability to reply on email notices due to computer illiteracy is genuine reason for non-appearance before CIT (A)
In the given case, the Karta of the HUF, Mr. BM Sarin is more than 70 years old and has closed his business. The notices were sent through emails but the assessee being a senior citizen could not look into those emails. He is not a computer literate and has no business as the business of the assessee was closed 5 years ago due to heavy losses. Therefore, there is a genuine reason for not appearing before the ld CIT(A).
Assessment in the name of proprietorship Concern of HUF is assessment on non-existent party
Further, the assessee submitted that the assessee is an HUF where Karta is the proprietor of M/s. Chunnu Fashions. In actual the name of assessee is “BM Sarin HUF”. The ld AO as well as CIT has passed an order in the name of M/s. Chunnu Fashions. In the total proceedings, the assessment order has never been framed on the correct persons i.e. BM Sarin HUF. It is also alarming that the assessment orders have been passed on non-existent party i.e. M/s. Chunnu Fashions which does not exists at all.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
