The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the Ex-parte order citing the Commissioner of Income Tax [appeal] [CIT(A)] failed to consider the written submission of the assessee and issued notice via email despite the assessee opting for “No” in form 35.
Devang Arvindbhai Desai (assessee) filed an income tax return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The Assessing Officer (AO) found some unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments, and undisclosed income in the assessee’s assessment and added all into the assessee’s taxable income.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax [appeal] [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) recorded that several opportunities were given and the assessee failed to provide reasonable arguments. Therefore CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and confirmed additions made by the assessing officer. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before (ITAT).
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The counsel of the assessee argued that despite a written submission filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) failed to consider the written submission. The counsel also stated that the assessee opted ‘No’ in Form-35 for service of notice through email.
The counsel for the assessee also contended that there was no notice in Physical form issued to the assessee which was the reason for non-compliance. Therefore, the counsel for the assessee sought to restore matters to the assessing officer in order to avoid a long process of remand report.
On the other hand, the counsel for revenue supported the orders of lower authorities and argued that there were sufficient opportunities given by the lower authorities. The counsel also stated to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The two-member bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(A) did not consider the written submission filed by the assessee and the notice was served only through email despite opting ‘No’ in Form-35.
Therefore, the tribunal held that to pass a fresh assessment order to AO, and directed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal was also directed the assessee to provide necessary information and evidence to the assessing officer. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
