The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for reassessment after finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] had sent notices to an incorrect email address.
Venkataraju Chandra Shekar, the appellant-assessee, had filed an appeal challenging the order for the Assessment Year(AY)2018-19 dated 30.5.2024 passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ( NFAC ).
Get a Copy ofIncome Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
The AO had issued an assessment order under sections 147 and 144 of the Act, making certain additions. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and contested that the order, arguing the additions were incorrect. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee’s non-appearance despite multiple notices.
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order, arguing it was unfair as it was issued without a proper opportunity to be heard. They disputed the Rs.1,21,50,000 addition as short-term capital gains, asserting it should be long-term and eligible for deductions. They also contested the Rs.1,35,00,000 addition under section 69, claiming it represented sale consideration rather than an investment.
The tribunal on hearing both sides found that notices were sent to csbasath2004@gmail.com instead of the correct email address, vcs201269@gmail.com, which was listed in the assessee’s profile. This error justified the assessee’s non-appearance before the CIT(A).
Get a Copy ofIncome Tax Refunds (Law & Procedure), Click here
The bench also noted that the AO’s order was ex-parte. The assessee explained that they did not receive the notices because they were not familiar with technology and only found out about the assessment order when their Authoritative Representative ( AR ) logged into the e-filing portal.
The two member bench comprising Soundararajan K ( Judicial Member ) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) set aside both the assessment and appeal orders, remitting the case to the AO for a fresh review and hearing, and partly allowed the appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
