ITAT Restores Appeal for Fresh Hearing as Notices Were Sent Only on Email:

ITAT Restores Appeal for Fresh Hearing as Notices Were Sent Only on Email

ITAT restores appeal dismissed ex parte by CIT(A) (NFAC); finds notices were sent only via email despite assessee’s explicit request and remands the matter for fresh adjudication.

Ex parte order of the first appellate authority set aside where notices were issued only through email despite assessee’s request otherwise.

authorMeetu KumaridateSep 4, 2025
Last update on Sep 4, 2025
ITAT Restores Appeal for Fresh Hearing as Notices Were Sent Only on Email The assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs.13,160/-. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found Multi Commodity Exchange transactions aggregating to Rs.75,97,21,755/-. As the assessee could not furnish a satisfactory explanation for these transactions, the AO estimated net profit at 0.5% of turnover and made an addition of Rs.37,98,608/- to the assessee’s income. On appeal, the first appellate authority (CIT(A), NFAC) had recorded an ex parte order. The assessee had, in Form No.35, specifically requested that notices/communications of hearing should not be sent by email; despite this, the record shows that all hearing notices were issued only by email and therefore remained uncomplied with, leaving the assessee unheard before the CIT(A).
Appeal Made to FM Nirmala Sitharaman for Extension of Tax Filing Deadlines
Issue Raised: Whether an ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) (NFAC) was viable where the assessee had specifically directed in Form 35 that notices were not to be served by email, but all notices were sent only over email, leading to a denial of an effective opportunity of hearing under Section 250.
Income Tax Filing Extended to Sept 15: What Taxpayers Need to Know Before It’s Too Late
ITAT's Ruling: The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained unheard before the first appellate authority because notices of hearing were recorded as sent only via email despite the assessee’s explicit instruction in Form 35. The Departmental Representative did not dispute this position. In view of this procedural lapse and resultant denial of opportunity of hearing, the ex parte order could not be sustained; the Tribunal therefore remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2157
Up Next

Loading suggestions…