SWETANK MADHUVIR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2155/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 June 2025AY 2013-14Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed (for statistical purposes)

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the email address in Form 35 explicitly indicated a denial for service via email. Thus, notices sent to that email were not considered valid service. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard, with the condition that the assessee must comply with all future notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14, which upheld reopening of assessment under Section 147 and an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), among other issues. The assessee contended that they did not receive email notices and had explicitly denied service via email in their appeal memo, despite the CIT(A) issuing notices to the email provided in Form 35.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to invalid service of notice through email is sustainable, and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 56(2)(vii)(b),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMARSHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &, Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR
Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 23.06.2025

PER: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short) dated 01.02.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in issuing notices on email and disposing the appeal ex-parte when the appellant has specifically denied for service of notices through email in the appeal memo.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in disposing the appeal ex-parte in violation of principles of natural justice.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in disposing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the case resulting in violation of S.250(6) of the Act.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 2,56,27,833/- u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

6.

Both the lower authorities have passed the order without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

7.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming levy of interest u/s. 234 A/B/C/D of the Act.

8.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. On going through the record, we find that the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued via email by the Ld. CIT(A) on five occasions, resulting in the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

4. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) via email. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee had specifically denied service of such notices by electronic means before the Ld. CIT(A). Nevertheless, the appeal was adjudicated ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that, given an opportunity, due compliance would be made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A); however, the Ld. DR objected it in principle. The Ld. DR argued that the notices have been duly issued to the e-mail address given in the Form 35, which is JINDAL1990@GMAIL.COM. Ld. AR argued that the next column of the e-mail address clearly mentioned “ whether notices/communication may be sent on e-mail” for which the assessee mentioned “No”.

Hence, we hold that the notices issued through e-mail JINDAL1990@GMAIL.COM cannot be treated as valid service of notice.

Nevertheless, keeping in view the facts on record, we find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity is given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

5.

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

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23.06.2025

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →