M/S MANSOORI SERVICE STATION,DAUSA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 583/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOONTANAT M EMEBER, DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMEBER1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both the lower authorities decided the case without proper service of hearing notices at the correct email addresses. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the NFAC/CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee alleged that hearing notices were not served at the updated email addresses and were sent to an old counsel's email. The AO also passed the assessment order ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred in dismissing the appeal/passing assessment order ex-parte due to non-service of notices at the updated email addresses, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR

Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOONTANAT M EMEBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMEBER

For Appellant: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, C.A
For Respondent: DR : 15/07/2025
Pronounced: 11/09/2025

Assessee by: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, C.A. Revenue by: MRS. ANITA RINESH, JCIT-DR : 15/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 ORDER Per: Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the NFAC/CIT(A)] dated 20.01.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 challenging therein the impugned order passed exparte qua the assessee rejecting the appeal of the assessee filed against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (In short ‘the AO’) ex parte u/s 144 of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice. explained that the hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and order passed u/s 250 dt. 20.01.2025 was sent at the primary e-mail id narsiprasad33@gmail.com and secondary e-mail id ashokmittal_adv@yahoo.com. None of the notices or order was sent at the updated primary e-mail id shahzukhshan@gmail.com or the e-mail id mentioned in Form No.35 anuhal@kalanico.com. The Ld. AR further submitted that Sh. Ashok Mittal Adv. expired on 11.10.2024. The two hearing notices dt. 11.12.2023 & 19.11.2024 were communicated from the office of Advoöate Ashok Mittal to CA Anil Nuhal who sought adjournment against these notices but the hearing notice dt. 08.01.2025 & order passed u/s 250 dt. 20.01.2025 was not communicated and thus could not be complied with.

2,1 Meanwhile the time for filing the appeal before ITAT has expired but from the date of the knowledge of passing the order u/s 250, the appeal filed is in time, as advised before Hon'ble ITAT with a request to condone the delay in filing the appeal with support of the Notarized affidavit of the appellant in support. The Ld. DR for the Department has no objection to the request in view of the reasonable cause explained by the assessee for the days is condoned, and appeal is admitted.

3.

Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that both the lower authorities have passed the orders exparte qua the assessee.

From the impugned order, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without serving the hearing notices at the primary e-mail id mentioned on the e-filing portal or on the communication address given in Form No.35 of Memorandum of Appeal.

The assessee was engaged in the business of running a petrol pump at Jaipur Road, Mahuwa, Dausa and it had filed its return of income on 06.11.2017 declaring total income ofRs.52,350/-.

4.

During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 143(2) dt. 29.09.218 and the subsequent notices U/s 142(1) on 21.05.2019, 03.10.219 and 20.11.2019. All these notices were issued at the e-mail id narsiprasad33@gmail.com of the earlier counsel of the assessee. It is noted that the assessee has appointed Sh. Ashok Mittal, Advocate to attend the assessment proceedings in the year 2018 and accordingly updated the primary e-mail id in the e-filing portal as shahzukhshan@gmail.com and secondary e-mail id as ashokmittal adv@yahoo.com. However, none of the notices were issued by the AO at these e-mail ids and thus assessment was notice of assessee when the partner of the firm received the message of demand raised. Thereafter, appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A) on 04.01.2020 through CA Anil Nuhal of ws Kalani & Co, Jaipur. In Form No.35, at Column No.17- Address to which notices may be sent to the appellant was given of CA Anil Nuhal with e-mail id anuhal@kalanico.com. But, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC issued hearing notices dt. 06.01.2021 at e-mail id S- narsiprasad33@gmail.com and notices dt. 11.12.2023, 19.11.2024 & 08.1.2025 at e-mail id narsiprasad33@gmail.com with cc to ashokmittal adv@yahoo.com. Meaning thereby that none of the notices or order was sent at the updated primary e-mail id shahzukhshan@gmail.com or the e- mail id mentioned in Form No.35 anuhal@kalanico.com and thus, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution without service of notice on either of the e-mail id’s as per record available in the Column No.17 of Form 35.

5.

From the above, it is evident that both the lower authorities decided the case of assesse without service of the hearing notices either at the primary e-mail id mentioned on the efiling portal or on the communication address given in Form No.35. In view of that matter, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded Assessment Years: 2017-18 back to AO to pass denovo assessment order after granting adequate opportunities of hearing to the assessee by effective and proper service of notices as the email ids updated on record. No doubt the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceeding by timely compliance to the notices.

6.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the assessing officer to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law.

7.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced as on 11/09/2025 in accordance with rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →