ITAT Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Due to Delivery of Notices to a Wrong Email Service; Remands Case for Fresh Hearing

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, held in favour of the taxpayer, Sadik Ali Shaikh, by remanding the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The tribunal observed that the case was not heard on its merits, and the appeal was dismissed merely on the ground of the assessee’s non-participation. However, the complete default was of the lower appellate authority, as the notices served were on an incorrect email address.

During the personal hearing before the ITAT Mumbai, the assessee claimed that he was never served notices appropriately during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). The notices were served to him at an incorrect email ID. In support of his claims, the assessee also gave screenshots of the notices issued.

The assessee submitted that in Form No. 35, he had filled his email address as [email protected]; however, during the proceedings before the lower appellate authorities, he was served the notices on a completely different email address, i.e., [email protected], which the assessee admitted did not belong to him.

Consequently, because of the aforementioned reasons, the assessee was not aware of the tax proceedings before the CIT(A). As the assessee did not attend the personal hearings before the lower appellate authority, the case was decided ex parte, and the assessee was deprived of the effective opportunity to represent his case. The assessee contended that “the ex parte order came to be passed solely on account of non-service of notices and not due to any deliberate default or lack of diligence on the part of the assessee.”

When the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai examined the facts of the case, it noted that the assessee was indeed served notices to a completely different email address than that reflected in Form No. 35. In such a situation, it was obvious the assessee would not have been aware of the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), and he was deprived of a fair opportunity of hearing. Overall, the case was not heard on its merits and decided ex parte merely on the grounds of the assessee’s non-participation.

In such a case, the tribunal held that “the resultant appellate order cannot be sustained without affording the assessee an opportunity to present his case on merits”. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the tribunal found it fair to quash the impugned order and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The lower appellate authority has been instructed to grant the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing before issuing the final order.