MAYUR STONES, HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y 2016-17:

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y 2017-18:

At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 326 days in filing of these appeals. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay which is supported by the affidavit duly signed by the Managing Partner of the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the learned CIT (A) were sent to the email ID not given by the assessee in Form-35 and therefore, the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and consequent ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT (A). He has submitted that the assessee came to know about the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) only when the Department has sent show-cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 23/09/2024 and immediately the assessee filed these appeals before this Tribunal. He has referred to the screenshot taken from the ITBA Portal to show that the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) were sent to the email other than the email ID given by the assessee in Form No.35. The learned AR has further pointed out that the show-cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were subsequently sent to the email ID given in Form 35 which were received by the assessee and only then the assessee came to know about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal is due to the reason that the assessee was not aware or having any knowledge about the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) as the same was not served to the assessee till the assessee received a show-cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/09/2024. Thus, there is a delay of 326 days in filing these

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that as per Rule 127 of the I.T. Rules, the notice and orders uploaded to the ITBA Portal amounts to proper service and therefore, the reasons explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay of 326 days is not reasonable or sufficient to condone the delay. Thus, he has objected to the condonation of delay.

We have considered the rival submission and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee has explained the cause of delay in filing the present appeals that the assessee was not aware about the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT (A) because the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) as well as the impugned order were sent to the email ID other than the email ID given in Form 35. At the outset, we note that the learned CIT (A) has sent the notices to the email ID nandyala_associates@yahoo.com whereas the assessee has given the email ID in Form-35 as ramu&co2@yahoo.com. Thus, it is apparent from the record that the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) were sent to an email ID which was not given in Form 35 for the purpose of service of notice or order. We further note that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones Page 5 of 8

As regards the contention of the learned DR that the uploading of notice and orders on ITBA Portal amounts to proper service is concerned, it is pertinent to note that once the assessee has given a specific address/email ID for service of notice/orders, then the authorities ought to have sent notice as well as the order only to the address/email ID given by the assessee in Form-35. Section 282 of the I.T. Act, 1961 contemplates the mode of service of notice or order or any other communication under this Act by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by post or by such courier as may be provided by the Board or in such manner as authorized under CPC 1908 or in the form of any electronic record as per the Information Technology Act, 2000 or by any other means or transmission of documents as provided by Rules made by the Board in this behalf. The Board has framed the rules for ITA Nos 1092 and 1093 of 2024 Mayur Stones Page 6 of 8

The learned AR has submitted that since the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) have issued notices to some other email ID and the assessee was not aware about the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A), therefore, the impugned orders were passed ex-parte by the authorities below. Hence he has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

On the other hand, the learned DR has no serious objection, if the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.

Having considered the rival submission and careful perusal of the record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution when the assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, by considering the reasons as explained by the assessee for non-participation before the learned CIT (A) that the notices were issued to the email ID other than the email ID given in Form 35, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given one more opportunity of hearing to present its case before the learned CIT (A) who has not passed a speaking order on the merits of the appeals of the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matters are remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned CIT (A) without seeking any adjournment.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th March, 2025. (MANJUNATHA, G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE-PRESIDENT Hyderabad, dated March, 2025 Vinodan/sps