ITAT Remands Appeal Over Incorrect Email Service:

The assessee is proprietor of M/s. New Sapna Granite Industry and was engaged in the business of cutting and processing granite stones. He had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18, and his case was flagged for verification of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that an HDFC Bank account had not been disclosed in the audit report. Accordingly, the AO treated transactions amounting to Rs. 20,22,150 in that account as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO also treated unsecured loans of Rs. 84,26,370 as unexplained due to the absence of evidence establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the transactions.

The assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act on 28 December 2019, determining the assessee’s total income at Rs. 1,36,95,660. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

The assessee submitted that the email address provided in Form No. 35 was something else, but the CIT(A) had issued notices the emails that did not belong to him and that he had consequently not received the notices.The Departmental Representative raised no objection to remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for providing another opportunity of hearing.

Considering this procedural lapse, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) and provide another opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to comply with the notices and furnish submissions on the grounds raised in the appeal.