SH. RATTAN SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee for the AY 2014-15 is time barred by 369 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay citing reasons for delay in filing of appeal. The delay in filing of appeal has been attributed to non-service of order passed by the CIT(A). It is contended that the order was sent by the CIT(A) on email address adv.sschauhan@gmail.com, whereas, the correct email address for communication of notices and the order as provided in Form NO. 35 is nitindagar670@gmail.com. The assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) after the assessee received notice u/s. 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 03.04.2026 on his email address nitindagar670@gmail.com. The assessee contacted the Counsel for advice and necessary action on notice u/s.221(1) of the Act. The Counsel checked portal of the Department,

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 167 ITR 471 has held that liberal approach should be adopted while dealing with an application praying for condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Pedantic and hyper technical approach should not be adopted while dealing with an application for condonation of delay.

Ms. Shilpa Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) as the notices were being sent on wrong email address. The assessee in Form No. 35 had given email address i.e. nitindagar670@gmail.com. No notice of hearing was received by the assessee on the said email address. Hence, the assessee was unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A).

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. Considering the submissions of the assessee and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The CIT(A) shall issue notice(s) to the assessee on email address furnished in Form No. 35. The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

These two appeals by the assessee are directed against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. None appearance of assessee before the CIT(A) is attributed to non-service of notices. It is alleged that the notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee on wrong email address. I find that the facts in the present appeals are similar to the facts in ITA No.5045/Del/2026. The findings given in the aforesaid appeal would mutatis mutandis apply to the present appeals. Thus, for parity of reasons impugned orders are set aside and appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose in similar terms.

To sum up, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.