VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Since identical facts and issues are involved in both these appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.3985/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 are stated herein:

The Assessee in ITA No.3985/CHNY/2025 raised the following grounds of appeal “1. The order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 18.03.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074643494(1) for the above-mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice should be reckoned as nullity in law. 3. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act were not followed in passing the impugned order and hence ought to have appreciated that ex-parte order under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The NFAC, Delhi erred in impliedly confirming the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act and consequently erred in impliedly confirming the passing of the re-assessment order under Section 147 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the re-assessment order was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 6. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act was without sanction of law and ought to have

Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The Return of income for the Assesment Year 2013-14 was filed on 03.09.2013 disclosing income of Rs.3,19,260/-. Subsequently, based on the information available with the Income Tax Department that the appellant had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- vide sale deed no.5721/2012 dated 21.12.2012 and the consideration was paid in cash, the Assessing Officer formed the opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s.148 on 31.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notice u/s.148 nor the notice u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the circumstances, e-Assessment Unit of the Department had proceeded with the framing of best judgement assessment order vide order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, at a total income of Rs.22,19,260/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.19,00,000/- on account of unexplained sources for purchase of immovable property.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) who had dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without entering into the merits of the case.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

At the outset, we find that there is delay in filing the present appeal before us by 209 days. The appellant filed an Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay on the ground that husband of the appellant, who was handling the tax matters of the appellant was undergoing series of medical treatment. As a result, he could not follow up with the Tax Practitioner who was entrusted the job of filing of appeal.

The averments made in the Affidavit seeking the condonation of delay in filing appeal before us remains uncontroverted by the ld.Sr.DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, it was held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. Therefore, in our considered opinion since the appellant was prevented from filing of appeal in time on account of

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act read with Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The

In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that proper notice(s) of hearing were not served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3985/CHNY/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3986/CHNY/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

To sum up, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th March, 2026.