AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
These appeals preferred by the Assessee against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in appeals filed before him against the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short) passed u/s 143(3)/147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Further details of the orders of the lower authorities are as under: -
| ITA No. & AY | Ld. FAA who passed the appellate order | Appeal No. & Date of order of the Ld. FAA | AO who passed the assessment order & Date of order |
| 3039/D/26 2020-21 | CIT(A)-29 New Delhi | Appeal No: CIT(A), Delhi – 29, 10938/2019-20 | ACIT, CC-25 New Delhi 30.03.2025 |
| 3040/D/26 2023-24 | CIT(A)-29 New Delhi | Appeal No.: CIT(A), Delhi-29 10065/2022-23 | ACIT, CC-25 New Delhi 30.03.2025 |
On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds on merits assesse has also raised a ground that without giving adequate opportunity of hearing the appeal was decided by ld. CIT(A).
In this context, we find that ld. CIT(A) mentions in para 4 of the notice being issued and that no submissions were filed by the assesse and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattarcharjee & Anr. Vs. CIT, (Central) Calcutta, reported in 118 ITR 461 adjudicated the appeal on merits. Ld. AR submits that assesse had not received any notice. In this context, after going through Form 35 we find that assesse had provided email address but had not mentioned that notice be served by email, at the same time there is reference of additional evidences been filed and there is no reference of same in impugned order.
In the light of aforesaid we consider it appropriate case to restore the issue on merits as well as to the files of ld. CIT(A) to serve notice on the assesse and pass order afresh. The aforesaid findings are pari materia applicable in both the appeals in hand. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes with the aforesaid direction.