KAILASH SINGH,BHOPAL vs. NFEAC , DELHI

The appeal was fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 21.10.2026. On the said date, the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) filed an application seeking adjournment. After considering the application and the circumstances of the case, the Bench rejected the adjournment request and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits on 21.10.2026.

The assessee had originally filed the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14, declaring income of Rs. 1,92,480/-, stated to be agricultural income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021, requiring the assessee to furnish a return of income. The said notice was served upon the assessee through the registered email address available in the records of the Income- tax Department. However, the assessee neither furnished a return of income in response to the notice under section 148 nor complied with the subsequent notices issued during the reassessment proceedings. It is further observed from the assessment order that the assessee remained non-responsive throughout the reassessment proceedings. Even the final show- cause notice under section 144 of the Act, which was served through the designated Verification Unit of the Department by speed post on 02.02.2022, remained uncompiled with. Consequently, in the absence of any explanation or supporting documentary evidence from the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the reassessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2022, making an addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- and determining the total assessed income at Rs. 4,66,92,480/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices providing opportunities of hearing to the assessee. However, as recorded in the impugned appellate order, the assessee neither responded to the notices nor furnished documentary evidence in support of the grounds raised in appeal. The ld. CIT(A) specifically observed that the assessee had failed to produce relevant documents, including the sale deed, return of income, books of account, bank statements, confirmation from the purchaser of the land and documentary evidence establishing the agricultural character of the land. In view of the continued non-compliance and absence of supporting documentary evidence, the ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 09.06.2025, dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessee had failed to substantiate the grounds raised against the assessment order.

Before us the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making high pitched addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000 as short term capital gains without affording any opportunity of being heard and against the principles of natural justice in an arbitrary manner. 2.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in making high pitched addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000 as short term capital gains by treating alleged market value of agriculture land not being Capital Asset U/s 2(14) sold during the year under consideration. 3. That the impugned order so passed is illegal and wrong. Moreover, the said order is passed without affording any opportunity of being heard and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee has contended that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, different from the email address stated to have been furnished in Form No. 35 and reflected in the assessee's profile on the income-tax portal. On this basis, the assessee has challenged the appellate order on the ground that an effective opportunity of hearing was not afforded. The learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee furnished a screenshot to demonstrate that the notice was issued to an email address other than the one ordinarily used by the assessee. He, therefore, submitted that the assessee could not avail itself of an effective opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the interest of natural justice.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee remained non-responsive throughout the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), despite being afforded opportunities of being heard. The Ld. DR, therefore, contended that no further opportunity was warranted and prayed that the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) be upheld.

However, it is also observed that the email address in the assessee's profile on the income-tax portal was updated on 20.10.2026, whereas the impugned appellate order had already been passed on 09.06.2025. The effect of this subsequent up- dation upon the assessee's allegation of non-service of notices requires examination with reference to the email address actually furnished in Form No. 35 and the contemporaneous records of service.

The principal contention raised by the assessee before us is that the ld. CIT(A) issued notices of hearing to an incorrect email address and, consequently, the assessee could not participate in the appellate proceedings. It has therefore been contended that the impugned appellate order was passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. On examination of the facts, we observe that the assessee had originally filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring income of Rs. 1,92,480/-, stated to be agricultural income. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. Despite service of the said notice through the registered email address, the assessee failed to furnish the return of income in response thereto.

We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) and perused the material available on record, including the assessment order, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. The adjournment application filed by the ld. DR on 21.10.2026 having been rejected, the appeal was heard on the basis of the material available on record.

We further observe that the assessee remained non- compliant throughout the reassessment proceedings. Even the final notice issued under section 144 of the Act, served through speed post on 02.02.2022, remained uncompiled with. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, making an addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000/-. It is also an admitted position that the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 03.11.2022 with a delay of 161 days. The said delay was condoned by the ld. CIT(A), thereby allowing the assessee an opportunity to contest the assessment order on merits.

However, despite the opportunities stated to have been provided during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish the relevant documentary evidence, including the registered sale deed, books of account, bank statements, confirmation from the purchaser and evidence relating to the agricultural character of the land.

We are of the considered view that the subsequent up-dation of an email address on 20.10.2026 cannot, by itself, establish that the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the earlier appellate proceedings were served upon an incorrect email address. The validity of such service has to be examined with reference to the email address furnished by the assessee in Form No. 35 and the email address available in the relevant departmental records at the time of issuance of the notices. Therefore, if the notices were issued to the email address furnished in Form No. 35 or otherwise validly served in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, the subsequent modification of the email address in the assessee's profile would not invalidate the earlier appellate proceedings.

We further observe that the assessee had failed to participate not only in the first appellate proceedings but also in the reassessment proceedings, despite the final notice under section 144 having been served through speed post. Thus, the record indicates continued non-compliance on the part of the assessee at both stages. Nevertheless, the validity of service of notices and the sufficiency of the opportunities afforded by the ld. CIT(A) must be determined independently of the assessee's conduct during the assessment proceedings. Earlier non-compliance cannot, by itself, cure any defect in the service of notices during the first appellate proceedings.

Accordingly, the assessee's contention regarding non-service of notices cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the subsequent updation of the email address. The contention must be supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence establishing that the notices were not issued or served in accordance with law. Subject to verification of the relevant records of service, we find no justification for setting aside the impugned appellate order solely on the ground that the email address was subsequently updated on 20.10.2026. However, the substantive addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- is required to be examined independently on the basis of the material available on record, the nature of the transaction, the relevant statutory provisions and the findings recorded by the authorities below. The absence of supporting evidence from the assessee is a relevant circumstance, but it does not dispense with the requirement of examining whether the addition is sustainable in accordance with law.

However, we also find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on account of the assessee's failure to respond to the notices and furnish supporting documentary evidence. The appellate authority is required under section 250(6) of the Act to decide the grounds of appeal by recording the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons supporting such decision. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the addition of Rs. 4,65,00,000/-, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), with a direction to decide the grounds of appeal afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with section 250(6) of the Act, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant documentary evidence, including the sale deed, details of the land, relevant revenue records, bank statements and such other documents as may be necessary for adjudication of the issues involved. The ld. CIT(A) shall examine the admissibility of any additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, wherever applicable.

We make it clear that no finding has been recorded by us regarding the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. All substantive issues are left open for consideration by the ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/10/2026.