ASHUTOSH SHAH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA, PATNA

ITA 431/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 October 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the specific case of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) had served notice on a wrong email ID and that the impugned order was passed without proper service of notice. Taking these facts and circumstances into account, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a specific direction to serve notice to the registered email ID of the assessee, which was stated as ashutoshshah.patliputra@gmail.com. The Ld. CIT(A) was further directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The ratio of the decision is that an ex-parte order passed without proper service of notice, violating principles of natural justice, warrants setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashutosh Shah, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order passed by the NFAC, Delhi (referred to as Ld. CIT(A)) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. There was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order because the notice was sent to a wrong email ID, leading to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee sought condonation of delay and a remand of the matter to the Ld. CIT(A). The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the assessee's submission that the ex-parte order was passed due to notice being served on a wrong email ID (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper notice (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the validity of the ex-parte order). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) served notice on a wrong email ID, resulting in the impugned order being passed without proper service of notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard. The assessee sought condonation of delay and remand. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought the dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘SMC’ BENCH

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kumar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chowdhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 08.10.2026

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The present Appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi ‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short) dated 20.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 66 days in filing the present Appeal. The Assessee filed an application along with an affidavit for condonation of delay contending that the Ld. CIT(A), while passing the order impugned, has not served the notice through the wrong e-mail ID which resulted in non-appearance of the Assessee and ultimately Ashutosh Shah; A.Y: 2017-18 passing of the ex-parte order impugned, th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →