Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed returns for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, which were assessed under Section 143(3). Subsequent appeals to the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. The assessee filed further appeals before the ITAT with a 132-day delay, seeking condonation due to business inoperativeness, accumulated losses, lack of staff, and the Managing Director's medical treatment.
Held
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A)'s service of notices via the ITBA portal was not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, leading to the ex-parte dismissal. Consequently, the tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned. 2. Whether the service of notice by CIT(A) through the ITBA portal constitutes valid service, affecting an ex-parte dismissal.
Sections Cited
143(3), 282(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 08.12.2023 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 & 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its returns of income for AY 2012-13 on 07.03.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 14,20,060/- and for AY 2013-14 on 14.03.2014 declaring an income of Rs. 37,26,690/-, which was set off against losses of earlier years. Against the said return of income, the assessment was 582/Coch/2024 Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. completed by the assessments were completed by the ACIT, Tirur (hereafter “the AO”) vide orders dated 27.03.2015 & 08.03.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total income of Rs. 3,19,00,149/- and Rs. 2,61,25,664/-, respectively.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned orders dismissed the appeals exparte.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the 4. present appeal. There is a delay in filing the present appeal by 132 days. The delay is stated to have occurred due to the fact that the appellant company was inoperative since 2018 with huge accumulated losses. There was no full time accountant or staff to looks after the statutory matters. Further, the Managing Director of the appellant company was under treatment for L.B.A (Kadeegraham) from 25.11.2023 to 25.02.2024. An affidavit and medical certificate to this effect were filed along with the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. After considering the explanation for delay we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. Accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte for non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant. From the orders the CIT(A)’s it is clear that notices of hearing were 582/Coch/2024 Anakkara Food Processing and Export Pvt. Ltd. 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 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, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cochin, Dated: 21st January, 2025 n.p.