VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These four appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 against impugned appellate order dated 07/01/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071962641(1), dated 12.03.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073191753(1), dated 11.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024- 25/1073114093(1) and dated 12.02.2025 (DIN & ORDER NO. ITBA/NFACS/250/2024-25/1073192339(1), respectively of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (A.1) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. (A.2) The grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. No.120/LKW/2025 1. Because the Order dated 07 .01.2025 passed by the NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC) DELHI dismissing he appeal of the appellant on the ground of 162 days delay in filing the appeal is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act as such the same is liable to be set-aside.

ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 2 of 10

(a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account of the assessee; or (b) sending an authenticated copy thereof t. the registered email address of the assessee or his authorized representative; or (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the Mobile App of the assessee, and followed by a real time alert;
(iii) every notice or order or any other electron’. communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being any other person, by sending; an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of such person, followed by a re» time alert;
3. Because the sub-clause (ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the Income
Tax Act provides that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the assesee by sending the same on registered account or registered email address or mobile app of the assessee and followed by the real time alert. In the present case, the penalty order u/s 271B dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 was though uploaded on the ITBA Portal and send on registered email address of the director of the appellant but the same was not followed by the real time alert in form SMS on his registered mobile no. 8953929116 as apparent on the Profile page of the ITBA Portal. The service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated 16.06.2023 for AY. 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the appeal is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside.
4. Because the appellant was not negligent in filing the appeal with the delay of 107 days rather on account of non-service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 in accordance of sub-clause
(ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the act lead to filing of appeal on 31.10.2023. 5. Because the appellant came to know about the penalty order u/s 271B dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on Third Week of Oct. 2023, thereafter the appeal was filed.
6. Because it is settled principle that if a law requires something to be done in a specific way, it should be done that way or not at all, was established in the 1936 case of Nazir Ahmed vs. Emperor. The Supreme
Court has reiterated this principle in recent cases, including Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors.
7. Because the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India,
(2023) 10 SCC 531: 2023 SCC Online SC 1278 at page 541 has held as under:
30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay.
However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.

ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 5 of 10

In the present case, the service of the penalty order u/s 271B dated
16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete.
Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the appeal is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside
9. That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, and withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
ITA. No.316/LKW/2025
1. Because the Order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the NATIONAL
FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC) DELHI dismissing he appeal of the appellant on the ground of 104 days delay in filing the appeal is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act as such the same is liable to be set-aside.
2. Because clause (6) of section 144B provides mode of service of notice and order
(6) For the purposes of faceless assessment
(i) an electronic record shall be authenticated by (a) the National Faceless Assessment Centre b way of an electronic communication,
(b) the assessment unit or verification unit of technical unit or review unit, as the case may be, by affixing digital signature;
(c) assessee or any other person, by affixing hi digital signature or under electronic verification code, or by logging into his registered account 1 the designated portal; ii) every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account of the assessee; or (b) sending an authenticated copy thereof t. the registered email address of the assessee or his authorized representative; or (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the Mobile App of the assessee, and followed by a real time alert;
(iii) every notice or order or any other electron’. communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being any other person, by sending; an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of such person, followed by a re» time alert;
3. Because the sub-clause (ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the Income
Tax Act provides that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the assesee by sending the same on registered account or registered email address or mobile app of the assesse and followed by the real time alert. In the present case, penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 was though uploaded on the ITBA Portal and send on registered email address of the director of the appellant but the same was not followed by the real time alert in form SMS on his registered mobile no. 8953929116 as apparent on ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 6 of 10

the Profile page of the ITBA Portal. The service of the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the appeal is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside.
4. Because the appellant was not negligent in filing the appeal with the delay of 104 days rather on account of non-service of the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 in accordance of sub- clause (ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the act lead to filing of appeal on 31.10.2023. 5. Because the appellant came to know about the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) dated 19.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on Third Week of Oct. 2023, thereafter the appeal was filed.
6. Because it is settled principle that if a law requires something to be done in a specific way, it should be done that way or not at all, was established in the 1936 case of Nazir Ahmed vs. Emperor. The Supreme
Court has reiterated this principle in recent cases, including Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors.
7. Because the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India,
(2023) 10 SCC 531: 2023 SCC Online SC 1278 at page 541 has held as under:
30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay.
However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022
passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the appeal is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside
9. That the appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, and withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
ITA. No.317/LKW/2025
1. Because the Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the NATIONAL
FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC) DELHI dismissing he appeal of the appellant on the ground of 107 days delay in filing the appeal is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act as such the same is liable to be set-aside.
2. Because clause (6) of section 144B provides mode of service of notice and order
(6) For the purposes of faceless assessment
(i) an electronic record shall b+ authenticated by ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 7 of 10

(a) the National Faceless Assessment Centre b way of an electronic communication,
(b) the assessment unit or verification unit of technical unit or review unit, as the case may be, by affixing digital signature;
(c) assessee or any other person, by affixing hi digital signature or under electronic verification code, or by logging into his registered account 1 the designated portal; ii) every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the assessee, by way of (a) placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account of the assessee; or (b) sending an authenticated copy thereof t. the registered email address of the assessee or his authorized representative; or (c) uploading an authenticated copy on the Mobile App of the assessee, and followed by a real time alert;
(iii) every notice or order or any other electron’. communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being any other person, by sending; an authenticated copy thereof to the registered email address of such person, followed by a re» time alert;
3. Because the sub-clause (ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the Income
Tax Act provides that every notice or order or any other electronic communication shall be delivered to the assesee by sending the same on registered account or registered email address or mobile app of the assesse and followed by the real time alert. In the present case, the penalty order u/s 271A dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 was though uploaded on the ITBA Portal and send on registered email address of the director of the appellant but the same was not followed by the real time alert in form SMS on his registered mobile no. 8953929116 as apparent on the Profile page of the ITBA Portal. The service of the the penalty order u/s 271A dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay in filling the appeal is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside.
4. Because the appellant was not negligent in filing the appeal with the delay of 107 days rather on account of non-service of the penalty order u/s 271A dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 in accordance of sub-clause
(ii) to clause (6) of section 144B of the act lead to filing of appeal on 31.10.2023. 5. Because the appellant came to know about the penalty order u/s 271A dated 16.06.2023 for AY 2021-22 on First Week of Oct. 2023, thereafter the appeal was filed.
6. Because it is settled principle that if a law requires something to be done in a specific way, it should be done that way or not at all, was established in the 1936 case of Nazir Ahmed vs. Emperor. The Supreme
Court has reiterated this principle in recent cases, including Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors.

ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 8 of 10

ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 9 of 10

regarding additions made in assessment order and penalties levied under sections 271A, 271AAC and 271B of the Act be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld.
Departmental Representative for Revenue relied on impugned orders of Ld.
CIT(A) and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. We are satisfied that the assessee did not get reasonable opportunity before the Assessing Officer and before the Ld. CIT(A), having regard to specific facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the foregoing, we set aside all the aforesaid four impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore the issues in dispute regarding the additions made in the assessment order and penalties levied under sections 271A, 271AAC and 271B of the Act; back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo orders in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/10/2025. [KUL BHARAT]
[ANADEE NATH MISSHRA]
VICE PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DATED: 31/10/2025
Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)

ITA Nos. 120/LKW/2025
315 to 317/LKW/2025
Page 10 of 10