PCL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(2)(1), MUMBAI

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR argued and filed a submission, where he stated that the Ld.CIT(A) fixed the appeal for hearing on different dates, but the notices were not duly served on the assessee in email. In this respect, the Ld.AR submitted an affidavit duly executed on dated 18/07/2025 by the director of the company, Mrs. Rupa Sunil Kukreja. The relevant part of the said affidavit is reproduced below:-

The Ld.AR argued that when the said email of the assessee was dysfunctional, there was no chance of serving the notice on the assessee. He respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Babarbhai Desai vs Income Tax Department Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr R/Special Civil Application No.11357 of 2023, date of order 26/08/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken the view by observing as below: - “7. On bare perusal of the SOP, it can be interpreted that if the assessee is not granted mandatory requirement of video conference for personal hearing. it would amount to breach of principles of natural. justice. Even if the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, the department could have written physical communication to the petitioner at the latest address known through speed-post. However, in the instant case, the petitioner had responded and categorically demanded for personal hearing through video conferencing which was not granted by the respondent. Therefore, the authorities have failed to follow the mandatory requirement of the Standard Operating Procedure, and resultantly, the impugned Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 28.07.2022 would not stand at all.

Resultantly, the impugned Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 28.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Faceless Assessment Authority to comply with the SOP and pass a fresh order after following the due procedure of law. The above exercise should be done within a period of 12 weeks from the

The Ld.DR argued and stood in favour of the orders of the revenue authorities.

In our considered view, the assessee has contended that its registered email address was completely non-functional during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon perusal of the affidavit placed on record, we find merit in the assessee’s submission that the notice was not duly served owing to the inoperative email ID. However, it is equally true that the assessee did not furnish any alternative email address to the revenue authorities for communication purposes. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra), we hold that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are kept open for the assessee to urge before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish a valid and functional email ID before the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure proper service of notices and is further advised to remain diligent and cooperative in the set-aside appellate proceedings.