HIRINGHUT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that merely uploading an order on the ITBA portal does not constitute valid service. Service must be effected as per prescribed methods, including electronic means. Therefore, the appeal was considered filed within the prescribed period.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to an alleged 5-day delay in filing. The assessee contended there was no delay, as the assessment order was served on March 26, 2025, and the appeal was filed on April 24, 2025. The CIT(A)/NFAC held that uploading the order on ITBA on March 21, 2025, constituted valid service.
What were the issues?
Whether uploading an order on the ITBA portal amounts to valid service of notice/order, and if the appeal was filed within the limitation period.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084000511 (1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
ITA No.488/Bang/2026 Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 6
ITA No.488/Bang/2026 Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 3 of 6
At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention on the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by alleging that
ITA No.488/Bang/2026 Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 4 of 6 there is a delay of 5 days in presenting the appeal and the assessee has not sought any condonation of delay in Form No.35.
3.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee in sl.no.14 of Form No.35 in response to whether there is delay in filing the appeal had categorically stated “No”. Further, in the said Form No.35, the assessee had also stated that the date of the order of AO is 21st March, 2025, however, the date of service of order/notice of demand was on 26th March, 2025. As the appeal was instituted on 24.4.2025 and therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal.
3.2 The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had categorically observed that the order under appeal was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and hence the order must reach to the assessee through the ITBA module on the same day i.e. on 21.3.2025 and accordingly the contention of the assessee relating to the service of order was rightly not accepted by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly, on perusal of Form No.35, we observed that at sl.no.14 in response to whether there is delay in filing the appeal, the assessee had categorically stated “No”. Further, we also observed that the assessee had also categorically mentioned that the assessment order dated 21.3.2025 was served on 26.3.2025. On perusal of the order ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we observed that the appeal of the assessee was instituted on 24.4.2025 and accordingly the claim of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC however on the ground that assessment order was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and
ITA No.488/Bang/2026 Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 5 of 6 accordingly held that the order must reach to the assessee through ITBA module on the same day i.e. on 21.3.2025.
4.1 We are of the considered opinion that merely by uploading the order on the ITBA portal could not be treated as valid service of notice. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessment order was served on the assessee through e-mail only on 26.3.2025 and thereafter the assessee became aware of the fact that assessment order dated 21.3.2025 was passed by the AO and accordingly filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 24.4.2025 i.e. well within the prescribed period. The Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Nitesh Kumar Goyal Vs. DCIT reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 979 (Chattisgarh) has held that “merely uploading of notice on the ITBA portal cannot be treated to be a valid service of notice.” We are also of the considered opinion that section 282 of the Act also prescribe that the service of notice or order may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy to the person therein named (a) by post or courier services; or (b) in such manner as provided under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the contention of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessment order was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and hence, the order must reach to the assessee through ITBA module on the same day is not correct and accordingly we accept the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was served on the assessee only on 26.3.2025 and therefore, the appeal is filed within the prescribed period.
4.2 Now having held that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting
ITA No.488/Bang/2026 Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 6 of 6 the same for adjudication on merits, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh on the merit of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 30th June, 2026. VG/SPS
Copy to:
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 282
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Mohd. Abrar, Bulandshahar vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2), BulandshaharITA 8343/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Chandar Jaisawal, Siddhartha Nagar vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 861/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Kavithak, Coimbatore vs Non Coop Ward4(3), CoimbaotoreITA 2258/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- All Indian Ski & Hide Tanners and Merchants… vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2115/CHNY/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026