WEST COAST FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-13(3)(2), CHURCHGATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6368/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 December 2025AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to be heard on merits before the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the non-appearance before the Ld.CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons, as supported by the affidavit filed by the assessee. The affidavit clearly explained that notices and the final order were sent to an incorrect email ID due to a typographical error in the hyphen. The Tribunal acknowledged that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) was an ex parte order, and the assessee was dismissed for not contesting the case, which was due to the non-service of notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the case in accordance with the law, taking into account the submissions and evidence furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that a proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, West Coast Foods Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 30/06/2025 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-Faridabad for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee contended that it did not receive hearing notices or the final order from the Ld.CIT(A) on its registered email IDs. An affidavit was filed by the Director of the company, stating that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID, 'shweta.vakil@west- coastin', which contained an extraneous hyphen, instead of the correct registered ID, 'shweta.vakil@westcoast.in'. Consequently, the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings, leading to an ex parte order. The appeal was filed on 01.10.2025, with a stated delay of 33 days from the order date, but within the time from discovery of the order. The assessee sought condonation of delay and a remand for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the order from the Ld.CIT(A) due to an incorrect email ID being used for communication. This is a mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and principles of natural justice. Assessee's Contention: The delay of 33 days is bonafide and not willful or deliberate, solely on account of the genuine circumstances explained in the affidavit, specifically the incorrect email communication. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative (Ld.DR) could not controvert the submissions made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & MS. PADMATHY S.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mantri, AR (virtually appeared)
For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT D/R
Hearing: 04.12.2025

Per Smt. Beena Billai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 30/06/2025 passed by Ld.CIT(A)- Faridabad [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for assessment year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, assessee has not received any notice of hearing on the registered email ID that has been displayed on the ITBA portal. The assessee has filed following affidavit stating the relevant details of the email ID that is mentioned in Form 35 as well as registered on the IT Portal:-

“BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL In the matter of Appellant:

1.

WEST COAST FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED for Assessment Year: 2016-17 AFFIDAVIT Affidavit in regard to non-service of the order of Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC and condonation of delay in filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal I Kamlesh Nemichand Gupta, son of Shri Nemichand Gupta, aged 57 years, residing at Sh, Mount Unique, Peddar Road, Cumballa Hill S.O, Mumbai - 400026, Maharashtra, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1.

1. 1. 1. That 1 am the Director of the company M/s. West Coast Foods Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant Company") and am duly authorized to affirm this affidavit.

2. That during the course of the proceedings before the HonJble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC [hereinafter "C1T(A)"], hearing notices under section 250 dated 14.02.2025 and 06.05.2025, as well as the order dated 30.06.2025, were issued. However, the said notices and the final order were not served on the communication e-mail IDs registered on the Income Tax Portal and the e-mail IDs mentioned in Form 35, namely: • hemang.s@westcoast.in • tax@westcoast.in • info@westcoast.in 3. That since the said notices were not served on the registered e- mail IDs, the Appellant Company was unable to respond to the same.

4. That the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 30.06.2025 was also not served on the assessee. It appears that the same was wrongly sent to shweta.vakil@west- coastin, which is neither the registered communication e-mail ID nor a correct e- mail ID.

5. That the notices and the final order sent to the incorrect ID "shweta.vakii@west- coastin", wherein an extraneous hyphen ("-") was inserted. The correct and registered e-mail ID is "shweta.vakil@westcoast.in”.

6. That on 26.09.2025, while checking the Income Tax Portal, my Chartered Accountant informed me for the first time that an appellate order for A.Y. 2016-17 had been uploaded on the portal.

7. That thereafter, upon consultation with my Chartered Accountant, it was advised that I should immediately file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the order of the Hon'ble CIT(A) - NFAC dated 30.06.2025.

8. That based on such advice, the appeal was filed on 01.10.2025. Accordingly, there is a delay of 33 days from the date of the order; however, the appeal has been filed well within the prescribed time from the date of service/discovery of the order.

9.

That the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate, nor with any intention to frustrate the judicial process, but solely on account of the genuine circumstances explained hereinabove.

10.

That I further state that there is no intention to jeopardize the interest of the Revenue by the said delay.

11.

That in view of the above, the delay of 33 days deserves to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

12.

It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merits.

VERIFICATION I, Kamlesh Nemichand Gupta, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Place: Mumbai Date: 30-09-2025 (Kamlesh Nemichand Gupta) Managing Director, West Coast Foods Private Limited”

2.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, as the notices were sent to wrong email ID, the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings and an ex parte order was passed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR thus, prayed for the matter to be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the issues on merits.

2.2. On the contrary, the Ld.DR could not controvert the submissions filed by the assessee.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in light of the records available before us.

3.

We find that the non-appearance caused before the Ld.CIT(A) on behalf of assessee was on account of bonafide reasons supra, which is supported by an affidavit. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed is an ex parte order without considering the submissions of the assessee. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the assessee is not interested in contesting the case. The Ld. AR prays for an opportunity of being heard in the interest of justice. 3.1. Considering the submission of the Ld. AR, we are of the opinion that assessee deserves an opportunity of being heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, remit the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the case in accordance with law having regards to submissions/evidences furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05/12/2025

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →