Case Details: Suresh Kumar Paruchuri v.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi - [2025] 176 taxmann.com 113 (Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.
- Sandeep Huilgol, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- M. Tirumalesh & Smt. Roopa, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee individual earned certain income by rent and from capital gains during the subject assessment year. He purchased the land from a construction company, constructed a commercial and residential apartment complex on the land, and subsequently sold it to the present residents.
The assessee filed his return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 58.35 lakhs. He had declared that he had earned long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 2.81 lakhs on the sale of the property above. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS (Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection). Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex parte assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144B, disallowing certain claims made by the assessee solely on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the requisite details.
During the assessment proceedings, communications and notices were issued to the email address of the assessee’s former Auditor, who was replaced by the present Auditor of the assessee. Assessee replaced his auditor and updated the email address of the current auditor in the appellate form. He had provided his specific email ID, namely ‘[email protected],’ for all correspondence in respect of the appeal. The assessee mentioned the email address as ‘[email protected]’ in Form No. 35.
High Court Held
On writ, the Karnataka High Court held that once the email address is changed and it is within the knowledge of the department, the department ought to have issued notice or communication to the assessee to the present email address to facilitate him to contest the case and provide a fair opportunity of hearing and decide the matter in accordance with the law.
Admittedly, this was not done in the present case; therefore, the impugned order passed by the AO cannot be sustained, given that no proper notice and no proper opportunity for a fair hearing were provided to the assessee.
The post HC Quashes Ex-Parte Order for Notice Sent to Wrong Auditor appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
