GIRIJA MANOJ,THRISSUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), THRISSUR

Briefly, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of running a poultry firm in the name and style of Kurupath Agencies. The assessee had not filed any regular return of income u/s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” hereinafter). A notice u/s.142 was served on the assessee calling upon the assessee to file the return of income for the assessment year 2017-2018. In response to the said notice u/s.142, the assessee filed return of income on 29th March, 2018 . Girija Manoj declaring total income of Rs.5,93,950. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (“the AO” hereinafter) at a total income of Rs.19,94,430. While doing so, the AO made disallowance of salary expenditure of Rs.13,00,000 out of the total expenditure of Rs.28,40,534. The AO also made disallowance of belated amount paid to BPCL of Rs.1,00,480.

Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without passing a speaking order.

Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before me in the present appeal.

The Senior Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 159 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit along with the condonation petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the assessee had no knowledge of the order passed by the CIT(A), since the order was served through Income Tax Portal. In the absence of any evidence rebutting the averments made in the affidavit seeking the condonation of delay, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 159 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it is apparent that the . Girija Manoj CIT(A) issued hearing notices through Income Tax Portal, which is not a valid and proper service of notice of hearing. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of sec.282(1) of the Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the assessee. It is pertinent to make a reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to the provisions of sec.282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to the file of AO for de novo disposal of the appeal.

Therefore, the order passed by the CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, in accordance with law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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