PREM KUMAR MENON,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. CIRCLE-17(1), CHENNAI

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed by the appellant disclosing total income at Rs.3,34,19,490/-. Based on the information that the appellant received Salary of Rs.30,10,806/- under the head “Salary” and income of Rs.3,26,13,368/- under the head “Income from House Property”. The Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the income got escaped assessment from tax. Against the said Return of Income, assessment was completed by the DCIT, Non-Corp Circle-17(3), Chennai (hereinafter called ‘AO’) vide order dated 21.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.3,73,21,348/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.39,01,858/- by disallowing the expenditures incurred for the failure of the appellant to substantiate expenditure incurred.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is submitted that the appellant could not comply to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A), no notice was served on the appellant.

On the other hand, the ld.Sr.Departmental Representative opposed the above submissions and submits that the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is justified as the appellant had not caused appearance before the ld.CIT(A).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. At the outset, we find that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution. We also find that ld.CIT(A) issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal which is not a proper service of notice. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income- tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice and orders which read as follows : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In view of the above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that proper notice(s) of hearing were not served upon the appellant. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo disposal of application after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026.