MANASA EDUCATION TRUST (R),MANDYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, MANDYA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 372/BANG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 July 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 178 days, finding the cause genuine and reasonable. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside as it was passed without proper service of notice and in violation of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 178 days, attributing it to a communication error where statutory notices were sent to an incorrect email ID by the Department. The assessee only became aware of the adverse order when checking the Income Tax portal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to a communication error by the department and whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(5),Section 250(6),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CA
For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT
Hearing: 19.06.2025Pronounced: 02.07.2025

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 12/06/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1065605511(1) for the assessment year 2020-21.

2.

The appeal has been filed with a delay of 178 days. The assessee has submitted an affidavit dated 25-04-2025 along with a petition for condonation of delay. As per the affidavit, the assessee is an educational institution managed by a trust. The principal who was appointed on 20- 06-2022, states that during the course of first appellate proceedings, all statutory notices were sent to an incorrect e-mail ID: 89praveenpc@gmail.com. It is explained that this was not the e-mail address provided to the ld. CIT(A). The correct and authorized e-mail ID furnished by the assessee in Form 35 was tnarayana2@gmail.com. Because of this error, the assessee never received any notice of hearing from the Department. As a result, the appeal was completed ex-parte by the ld. CIT-A, dismissing the same without providing the assessee any opportunity of being heard.

4.

The assessee came to know about the adverse orders only in the last week of January 2025, after receiving a telephonic call and later checking the Income Tax portal. Immediately thereafter, steps were taken to file the present appeal.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The delay in filing the appeal has been reasonably explained, and there is no indication of wilful default or negligence. The delay is mainly due to communication error caused by the Department using a wrong e-mail ID. Once the assessee became aware, it acted promptly to seek redressal. Under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal is empowered to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown. The facts of this case constitute a genuine and reasonable cause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has laid down that a liberal approach must be taken when substantial justice is at stake. In light of the above, the delay of 178 days is condoned.

5.1 Since the ld. CIT(A)’s order was passed without proper service of notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, the same cannot be sustained. Further, the ex-parte assessment under section 144 also requires reconsideration after giving the assessee due opportunity. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

5.2 The AO is directed to issue all future notices and communications to the new e-mail ID furnished in Form 36: jagadeeshavk15@gmail.com, and to any other updated address as may be confirmed in writing by the assessee.

5.3 The assessee shall co-operate fully with the proceedings and respond to all communications in a timely manner. The AO shall also grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit the required documents. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →