Facts of the Case

The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, against an appellate order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Addl./JCIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The original assessment was completed ex-parte under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at ₹10,00,500. The first appellate order was also passed ex-parte without the participation of the assessee.

The appeal before the Tribunal was filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under section 253(3). An application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit was filed, explaining that the delay occurred due to non-service of notices and lack of access to the appellate order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT deserved to be condoned.
  2. Whether the ex-parte appellate order passed by the CIT(A) without proper service of notice was valid in law.
  3. Whether failure to serve notices on the designated email ID mentioned in Form-35 violates principles of natural justice.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and occurred due to non-service of notices by the first appellate authority. It was submitted that the designated email ID provided in Form-35 was info@casks.in, whereas notices were allegedly sent to a different email ID to which the assessee had no access.

The assessee further submitted that no physical notices were served and there was no deliberate intention to avoid appellate proceedings. Reliance was placed on various judicial precedents, including decisions of the ITAT and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, supporting a liberal approach in condoning delay and emphasizing the necessity of providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to the application for condonation of delay and left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal. On merits, the Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Court Order / Findings

The Tribunal observed that the assessment as well as the first appellate order were passed ex-parte. It noted that notices were not served on the designated email ID provided by the assessee in Form-35 and no evidence of physical service was brought on record.

Being satisfied with the explanation offered, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It further held that the assessee could not be faulted for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to improper service of notices.

Accordingly, the impugned appellate order was set aside and all issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal reaffirmed that service of notice must strictly comply with the email address furnished by the assessee in statutory forms. Any deviation resulting in denial of opportunity vitiates the appellate proceedings. The decision reinforces that procedural lapses by the department cannot prejudice substantive rights of the assessee, and matters should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than technicalities.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770633360_VISHNUKUMARKESARWANIPRAYAGRAJVS.INCOMETCKYR3bs5ybtocF323sz9J6RFfyG1viBAD.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.