Saraswathi M Khjuri v ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

In the case of Saraswathi M Khjuri v ITOthe assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) dated May 14, 2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. The main contention was that the assessee did not appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) despite receiving several notices. However, the notices were sent to an email address specifically indicated as not intended for release in the assessee’s appeal form. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore observed that this miscommunication was not entirely attributable to the assessee, although the assessee was aware of the proceedings and had even requested postponements on certain occasions.

In view of the procedural irregularities, the ITAT has decided to grant another opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the Assessing Officer (AO). The court set aside the earlier assessment order and directed the AO to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law. The assessee has also been advised not to seek adjournment without valid reasons in future. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the matter was remanded for further consideration.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 14/05/2024 vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064859862( 1) for assessment year 2017-18. .

2. From the outset, it was observed that the assessee did not appear during the proceedings before the learned CIT-A despite the fact that several summons were issued by the learned CIT-A indicating the date of the hearing. All notices have been issued by the learned CIT-A to the email address given by the assessee in Form No. 35 submitted in the appeal. However, on reading the relevant column of Form 35 where the email id has been provided by the assessee, we find that it has been clearly stated that no communication should be sent to the email id. However, all the notices were issued by the learned CIT-A only through e-mail. Thus, we are of the view that non-appearance before the learned CIT-A cannot be attributed to the failure of the assessee. As such, we are of the view that there was sufficient reason for the assessee to restrain him from not responding to the notices issued by the ld. CIT-A.

3. However, it is important to note that the assessee, in response to the notices issued by the learned CIT-A, also sought adjournment on certain occasions, which implies that the assessee was aware of the proceedings before the Ld. CIT-A. Therefore, the assessee cannot claim ignorance of the procedure before the learned CIT-A since the notices were communicated to the email ID.

4. However, the learned AR appearing on behalf of the assessee before us has taken responsibility for necessary compliance before the tax authorities and therefore requested to set aside the matter on the record of the AO for further determination in accordance to the provisions of the law. as the assessee also did not appear during the assessment proceedings.

5. In view of the above, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to grant further opportunity to the assessee to argue his case before the AO. It is also directed that the assessee shall not seek any adjournment without valid reason. Therefore, we have reserved the matter on the record of the AO for further determination in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee is admitted for statistical purposes.

6. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order handed down in court on the 26th^th day of August 2024