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

4. Because the director of the appellant on 13.02.2025 had requested from the airtel to provide details of messages from 06.012.2022 to 13.12.2022 w.r.t mobile no. 8953929116, but till date nothing has informed from airtel side.

5. Because the appellant was not negligent in filing the appeal with the delay of 162 days rather on account of non-service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 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 17.06.2023.

315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 10 6. Because the appellant came to know about the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 for AY 2021-22 on First Week of June. 2023, thereafter the appeal was filed.

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 (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 315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 4 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. 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.”

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 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.

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.”

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.

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.

315 to 317/LKW/2025 Page 8 of 10 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 8. 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.” (B). First, we take up appeal vide ITA. No.12/LKW/2025. In this case, the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 was passed determining the assessee’s total loss at Rs.21,06,623/- (Rounded of at Rs.21,06,630/-. This assessment order was passed ex parte qua the assessee, u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) and penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Act, u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act and u/s 271B of the Act, also were initiated by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty amounting to Rs.25,000/- under section 271A of the Act read with section 44A of the Act, vide order dated 16.06.2023. Further, vide order dated 19.06.2023 passed u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act penalty amounting to Rs.43,56,269/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Moreover, vide order dated 16.06.2023 passed u/s 271B read with section 44AB of the Act amounting to Rs.57,785/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Act. The assessee filed appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) against the aforesaid orders of the Assessing Officer; which were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). Present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned orders of Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A), both have passed orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He submitted that the issues in dispute in these present appeals 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.