TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to as "AO"] under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. Fact of the Case: 2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of resale of plastic mats, operating between Kerala and Ahmedabad, who did not file his return of income for the AY 2014-15. The AO reopened the assessment for AY 2014- 15 under section 147 of the Act, based on information received through the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS) indicating cash deposits of Rs. 22,71,200/- in the assessee's ICICI Bank account. Despite notices under section 148 of the Act and subsequent notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee did not respond, resulting in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment for AY 2014-15. 1.3 That the in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the notice issued u/s 148 by AO of Ahmedabad was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, so that it was liable to be quashed. 2.1. The Id. Addl.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there could not be compliance to the notices claimed to be issued because the mail id pertain to his tax consultant who had not informed him about any such proceedings or notices of hearing. Thus, there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by Addl.CIT(A). 2.2. The Id. AddI.CIT(A) has grievously erred in not considering fully and properly the submission made by the appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee is now prepared to fully co-operate with the Addl.CIT(A) and provide all necessary evidence to substantiate his claims regarding the cash deposits, and requested that the matter be remanded back for adjudication on merits. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to restoring the matter back to the file of the Addl.CIT(A). 5.1. Upon perusal of the facts and the order passed by the Addl.CIT(A), it is evident that the appeal was dismissed solely due to non-compliance with the notices under section 250 of the Act. A critical aspect raised by the AR is that the registered email address on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal was not the personal email address of the assessee, but that of his Tax Consultant and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....However, the assessee's unawareness of the email and the absence of any direct communication significantly impacts the fairness of the proceedings. The Addl.CIT(A) did not explore the underlying reasons for non-compliance, particularly considering the assessee's lack of technological knowledge and the reliance on a third party (the tax consultant) to handle communications. In addition to the communication issue, it is evident that the Addl.CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on its merits. Instead, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the lack of response to the notices. The substantive issues raised by the assessee, such as the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act and the explanation for the cash deposits, we....