https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773747 The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed both the rectification order u/s 154 and the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after the assessee failed to respond to four notices. However, the ITAT found that three notices were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form 35. The ITAT held that CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits under section 251 and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution. The rectification order regarding cash deposits during demonetization was also quashed as no mistake apparent from record existed. en-us Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:37:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773747 The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed both the rectification order u/s 154 and the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after the assessee failed to respond to four notices. However, the ITAT found that three notices were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form 35. The ITAT held that CIT(A) must decide appeals on merits under section 251 and cannot dismiss for non-prosecution. The rectification order regarding cash deposits during demonetization was also quashed as no mistake apparent from record existed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773747