Syed Ariff Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Bangalore addressed the case of Syed Ariff, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) dated January 11, 2024, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The case highlights the importance of proper communication and the right to be heard in income tax proceedings.
Background of the Case
The assessee, Syed Ariff, is an individual who failed to file his income tax return for the assessment year in question. The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently issued a notice to him, which went unanswered. Following this, the AO issued another notice, prompting Ariff to file objections claiming that the cash deposits in question were derived from agricultural income.
Despite his objections, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, categorizing the cash deposits as unexplained investments and cash credits. This decision led Ariff to file an appeal with the NFAC, asserting that his previous submissions were not adequately considered.
Issues Raised in the Appeal
The primary contention in Ariff’s appeal revolved around the communication of notices. In Form 35, which he submitted as part of the appeal process, Ariff explicitly stated that he did not wish to receive notices or communications via email. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) proceeded to issue five notices to the email address provided in Form 35. This action led the CIT(A) to conclude that Ariff was disinterested in prosecuting his appeal, resulting in the dismissal of his case ex-parte.
