ROYAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND RESEARCH CENTRE,KUNNAMKULAM vs. ASST. CIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, KOCHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, citing a High Court judgment, held that notices issued through the ITBA portal by the CIT(A) were not valid service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a trust registered under Section 12AA, had an addition of Rs. 9.58 crore made to its income by the AO under Section 143(3) for unexplained loans/borrowings. The CIT(A) subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
What were the issues?
Whether service of hearing notices through the ITBA portal by the CIT(A) constitutes valid service under Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)75 citing463 ITR 560 · 2024 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23.09.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The return of income for AY 2016-17 was furnished on 14.10.2016. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by Royal Educational Society and Research Centre the ACIT, Exemption Circle, Kochi (hereafter “the AO”) vide order dated 18.12.2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 8,89,45,376/-. While doing so the AO treated the loans and borrowings of Rs. 9,58,83,298/- as unexplained income of the appellant society and added to the income for the alleged failure of the appellant to file confirmation letters and to prove creditworthiness, genuineness and identity of creditors.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte by holding that the appellant could not put in appearance despite granting 4 opportunities. From para 4 of the CIT(A)’s order it would be clear that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA portal. In our considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal Royal Educational Society and Research Centre BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case.
Respectfully following the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court we remand the matter back to the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose the appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Vimala, Pondicherry vs ITO, Ward 5, PuducherryChennai27 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
The Tribunal held that the service of notice through the ITBA portal by the CIT(A) was not a valid method as per Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the principles of natural justice were violated a...
- Arch Tech Building Materials Private… vs ITO, Ward 1, CuddaloreChennai11 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
The Tribunal held that notices were not properly served upon the appellant as they were issued through the ITBA Portal, which is not a valid method of service. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the ser...
- Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala… vs ITO, Ward-2, ThiruvallaCochin20 Nov 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method under Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, citing a P&H High Court judgment. Con...
- Parakkadath Simon Varghese, Thrissur vs Income Tax Office, International Taxation…Cochin20 Aug 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA Portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal relied on a...
- Abbobacker Siddieque, Malappuram vs ITO, Ward 1& Tps, TirurCochin19 Aug 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
The Tribunal held that the service of notice through the ITBA Portal was not a valid method of service as per section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This violated the p...
More judgments on Section 12AA
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2448/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Yashaswi Academy for Skills, Pune vs PCIT (Central), PuneITA 2447/PUN/2026[NA]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026