RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER , BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 917/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, with directions to issue notices to the correct email address.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 516 days because notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address. The assessee claimed this was unintentional and due to reliance on their consultant's email, which was provided for communication.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to incorrect email communication, and whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits after restoring it to the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S. & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 31.7.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (“ld. CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The present appeal is delayed by 516 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the present appeal. It has been submitted that all the notices and communications from the office of the ld. CIT(A) were sent to the e-mail address, which was different

ITA No.917/Bang/2026 Rajendra Kumar Jain, Bengaluru Page 2 of 5 from the e-mail address mentioned by the assessee for communication in Form No.35. Accordingly, as per the assessee, he could not respond to any of the notices for hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) was also sent to the e-mail address, which is different from the e-mail address provided for communication in Form No.35. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal could not be filed within the prescribed limitation period, and the delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional and bona fide.

3.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation of delay laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, reported in (1987) SCR (2) 387. It is well established that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. Thus, when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In the present case, the assessee does not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. In view of the above and having perused the affidavit and an application filed by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there exists sufficient cause for not filing the present appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, we condone the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal filed by the assessee.

4.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner passes under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellants case. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte and in confirming the addition without proper adjudication on merits.

ITA No.917/Bang/2026 Rajendra Kumar Jain, Bengaluru Page 3 of 5 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to exercise the powers vested under section 251 of the Act and did not call for a remand report OR conduct independent verification before confirming the addition. The authorities below erred in relying upon third-party information received from the Department of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka without furnishing the complete material relied upon to the appellant. The addition has been sustained without providing opportunity of cross-examination of the alleged entry providers, rendering the action violative of principles of natural justice. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had furnished purchase invoices, ledger accounts, GST returns and bank details during assessment proceedings. The authorities erred in disallowing the entire purchases without disputing OR disturbing the corresponding sales recorded in the books of account. 5. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the GST Department issued a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-OI dated 27.09.2023 proposing disallowance of alleged bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC). The matter was subsequently adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (JCCT) in GST Appeal No. AP: 86/2024-25 in the case of M/s. Siddarth Industrial Supplies vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit)-2.9, Bangalore, and vide order dated 16.08.2024, the learned authority held that adverse conclusions cannot be drawn merely on the basis of departmental investigation reports without establishing actual non-supply of goods. As recorded in para 29 of the said order, the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act relating to availment of ITC and had duly discharged the burden of proof by producing tax invoices, proof of payment, evidence of movement and receipt of goods, and proof of existence of the suppliers during the relevant tax periods.”

5.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to non-adherence on behalf of the assessee. Now in the appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the Authorised Representative (“ld. AR”) and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, the ld. A.R. submitted that the hearing notices were sent by the ld. CIT(A) on the e-mail address of the assessee instead of the e-mail address of the consultant provided in Form No.35 for the purpose of communication. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee is not in the habit of regularly checking his e-mails and for the tax

ITA No.917/Bang/2026 Rajendra Kumar Jain, Bengaluru Page 4 of 5 matters solely relied on his consultant, whose e-mail address was provided in Form No.35.

5.1 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee is hereby granted one more opportunity to represent this case on merits before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for de- novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the party. Further, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to issue the hearing notice(s) on the e-mail address provided in Form No.35, unless at a subsequent stage, the assessee wishes to change his e-mail address for the purpose of communication of the hearing notice, for which the assessee is directed to intimate the ld. CIT(A) in advance. Thus, the assessee is directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Balakrishnan S.) (Sandeep Singh Karhail) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 29th May, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.917/Bang/2026 Rajendra Kumar Jain, Bengaluru Page 5 of 5 Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →