Income Tax Notices Sent to Spam Folder in E-Mail, Not Replied: ITAT Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order citing Violation of Natural Justice
The tribunal condoned the delay of 313 days in filing the appeal and held that non-receipt of notices due to technical glitches amounted to a violation of natural justice.
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT)set aside the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18 after the assessee failed to respond to four notices that were sent to its spam email folder and held that this non-response to be violation of natural justice. Benit &...
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT)set aside the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18 after the assessee failed to respond to four notices that were sent to its spam email folder and held that this non-response to be violation of natural justice.
Benit & Co.Electronics Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee,appealed against the CIT(A) order for AY 2017-18 dated 12.01.2024. The appeal was filed after a delay of 313 days. The assessee explained the delay through an affidavit. The delay was found reasonable and condoned, and the appeal was heard on its merits.
The assessee counsel said the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte because the assessee did not respond to four notices. The notices went to the assessee’s spam folder, so they were unaware and did not reply. The counsel asked for one more chance before the CIT(A). The department counsel opposed giving another opportunity.
Know Tax Planning Real Estate Transactions - CLICK HERE
The two member bench comprising Aby T.Varkey (Judicial Member) and S.R.Raghunatha (Accountant Member) heard both parties and checked the records. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order because the assessee did not reply to four notices. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment since no documents were submitted.
However, the appellate tribunal found that the notices went to the assessee’s spam folder, so the assessee was unaware and did not respond. This was held as a violation of natural justice.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and sent the appeal back for fresh hearing on merits. The assessee agreed to submit all documents and arguments before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed order after hearing the assessee. The ITAT also noted the email ID for correspondence and asked the CIT(A) to use it for future notices.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
