ITAT Orders Re-adjudication as Tax Notices For Fixing Hearing Dates Sent to The Fallacious e-Mail ID

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) renders re-adjudication as the notices to fix the date of hearing sent to the wrong email address.

Assessing Officer under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act passes the impugned assessment order. He sees that various chances were provided via providing the show cause notices that have not complied in the absence of any supporting proof filed in assistance of the taxpayer claim, Syed Nadeem Abbas.

The assessment was completed ex-pate. The taxpayer in his income tax return has filed claimed agricultural income. The taxpayer’s matter was chosen for limited scrutiny under CASS on the subject of “large agricultural income”.

As no documentary proof was filed in this regard, this was added as income via additional sources. Against this, the taxpayer went on appeal before the related Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals).

The Commissioner of Income Tax Return (ITR) (Appeals), or CIT(A), scheduled four different hearing dates which the assessee failed to attend. Notices were sent to the email address ‘caspagrwal@gmail.com’ as indicated in Form 35.

Since the assessee did not respond to these hearing notices and failed to provide any submissions, the CIT(A) made a decision based on the information provided in Form 35.

The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee appeared disinterested in pursuing the appeal, and therefore, there was no basis for overturning the Assessing Officer’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Read Also:- Delhi ITAT: Re-assessment Order Can’t Be Based on Inaccurate Details

Sachin Jain, representing the assessee, argued that at the first appellate stage, proceedings were conducted digitally, and hearing dates were communicated via email to the address specified in Form 35.

In this specific case, the CIT(A) had mistakenly noted the incorrect email address, resulting in the non-receipt of the hearing notices.

Jain also pointed out a discrepancy in the email address recorded by the CIT(A). The correct email address should have been ‘caspagarwal@gmail.com,’ while the email address used by the CIT(A) for sending notices was ‘caspagrwal@gmail.com.’ Anuj Garg, appearing on behalf of the revenue, was also present.

After considering the facts and the highlighted discrepancy, a two-member Bench consisting of C.M. Garg (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) determined that it was appropriate to remand the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh review.

This would allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present their case in support of their claim.