The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter due to CIT(A) failing to adhere to the explicit instructions in Form 35 where the assessee had requested not to receive notices via email.
The R.K. Sipani Foundation, the assessee, raised 10 grounds of appeal against the CIT(A)’s order dated 30th July 2024. The appeal highlighted that no notice of hearing was issued in accordance with procedural norms. The assessee had specifically mentioned in Form 35 that notices should not be sent via email, yet the CIT(A) failed to confirm whether notices were sent via any other mode.
Law and Procedure for Filing of Appeals
The assessee further sought to submit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, as mentioned in Form 35. On appeal before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair opportunity for representation and failed to issue notices via appropriate means. The assessee assured the tribunal that it would monitor the email ID registered with the Income Tax Department and comply with future notices.
The two-member bench comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) and Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) considered the arguments from both sides. The tribunal observed that CIT(A) failed to adhere to the notice service instruction in Form 35 where the assessee mentioned not to serve the notice via email. Despite this, the CIT(A) served notice only via email which was not proper service of notice.
Law and Procedure for Filing of Appeals
The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) adjudicated the matter without verifying compliance with procedural requirements and without addressing the substantive merits of the case. This approach was found to be contrary to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates adjudication on merits.
The tribunal ruled that the CIT(A) did not follow due process and explained the necessity of providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication ensuring procedural compliance and a merit-based decision. 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
