Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal after a delay of 181 days, seeking condonation. The delay occurred because the assessee did not receive notices from the Ld. CIT(A) as they were sent to incorrect email IDs, despite the assessee specifying a preferred email for communication. The original appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to this lack of proper communication.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had clearly specified an email ID for communication in Form No. 35, and the failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to use this specified ID for sending notices and the appellate order resulted in the assessee being unaware of the proceedings. Therefore, the delay of 181 days was considered reasonable and bona fide, occurring due to reasons beyond the assessee's control.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the condonation of a 181-day delay in filing the appeal due to the improper service of notices by the Ld. CIT(A). A secondary issue involved whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication with additional evidence.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 69A, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SM’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. : This appeal is filed by M/s. Veenus Jewellars (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 31.12.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 181 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that while filing Form No. 35, the assessee had specifically opted “No” for communication through e-mail and had categorically requested that no e-mail correspondence be used for service of appellate notices. However, despite such specific instructions, the Ld. CIT(A) issued all notices only through e-mail and did not send any notice by post to the communication address mentioned by the assessee. It was further submitted that at column No. 17 of Form No. 35, the assessee had provided the e-mail ID chaitanya.advocate@gmail.com for the purpose of communication. The Ld. AR further submitted that even assuming that notices were to be issued through e-mail, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sent all communications to the e-mail ID specifically mentioned by the assessee at column No. 17 of Form No. 35. It was pointed out that only one notice bearing reference ID 100053906464 was sent by the Ld. CIT(A) to two e-mail IDs, namely skoduru@gmail.com and chaitanya.advocate@gmail.com. While the latter e-mail ID was correctly used as it was provided by the assessee for communication, the former e-mail ID was never furnished by the assessee for the purpose of appellate communication, though it might have been registered on the Income-tax portal. It was further contended that none of the other notices nor the appellate order were sent to the specified e- mail ID, i.e., chaitanya.advocate@gmail.com. Instead, the other notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A) to e-mail IDs such as skoduru@gmail.com and caktotaitd@gmail.com, which were not specified by the assessee in Form No. 35 for communication. In support of these submissions, the assessee filed screenshots of the e-mails received, substantiating the contention that the notices and the appellate order were sent to e-mail IDs other than the one provided by the assessee for communication. The Ld. AR submitted that due to such improper communication by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not receive the other notices or the appellate order. It was only when the assessee received a telephonic call from the Revenue for recovery of outstanding demand that the assessee became aware of the passing of the appellate order. Immediately thereafter, the assessee took steps to file the present appeal and ultimately filed the same before the Tribunal on 28.08.2025. It was thus contended that the delay of 181 days was neither deliberate nor due to negligence on the part of the assessee, but occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued all notices as well as the appellate order to the e-mail IDs registered on the Income- tax portal, and therefore, there was no fault on the part of the appellate authority. It was contended that no reasonable cause has been shown by the assessee for condonation of delay, and accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay deserved to be rejected.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the assessee had specifically mentioned the e-mail ID chaitanya.advocate@gmail.com at column No. 17 of Form No. 35 for the purpose of communication in appellate proceedings. It is also an undisputed fact that except for the one notice, the other notices and the appellate order were not sent to the said e-mail ID provided by the assessee for communication. Therefore, in our considered view, once the assessee has clearly specified an e-mail ID for communication in Form No. 35, the appellate authority is expected to adhere to the same for all further correspondence. The failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to send other notices and the appellate order to the specified e-mail ID provided by the assessee has resulted in the assessee not being aware of the proceedings and the passing of the appellate order. The explanation offered by the assessee for the delay thus appears to be reasonable, bona fide, and supported by material on record. Therefore, we are satisfied that the delay of 181 days in filing the appeal has occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee and not due to any negligence or deliberate inaction. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay of 181 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. 1. 1. 1. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ld. AO”) under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the assessment year 2017– 18, dated 30.12.2019. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
7. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that for the very same reasons as explained while seeking condonation of delay before this Tribunal, the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the notices were sent to e-mail IDs other than the e-mail ID specifically mentioned by the assessee at column No. 17 of Form No. 35 for the purpose of communication of appellate proceedings. Consequently, the assessee did not receive the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and was, therefore, prevented from prosecuting the appeal on merits before the appellate authority. The Ld. AR further submitted that certain additions were made by the Ld. AO on the basis of the transactions in the bank account. He also submitted that the said bank transactions were related to another firm M/s. Veenus Jewellers (PAN : AANFV4743N) and the same had been accounted for by that firm in their books of account. However, due to lack of sufficient opportunity, certain documents in support of the assessee’s claim could not be produced before the Ld. AO, in the absence of which the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the assessment order under section 144 of the Act. It was contended that the documents now sought to be filed are crucial in nature and go to the very root of the matter. Accordingly, the assessee has filed the said documents before this Tribunal along with a petition for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity be granted to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO, so as to enable the assessee to substantiate its claims on the basis of the additional evidence. It was also prayed that the additional evidence be admitted and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after due verification.
8. Per contra, the Ld. DR objected to the remand of the issue, contending that adequate opportunities had already been provided by the lower authorities, which the assessee failed to avail. It was submitted that no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR has submitted that certain additions were made by the Ld. AO on the basis of the transactions appearing in the bank account. He has also submitted that the said bank transactions were related to another firm M/s. Veenus Jewellers (PAN : AANFV4743N) and the same had been accounted for by that firm in their books of account. However, due to lack of sufficient opportunity, certain documents in support of the assessee’s claim could not be produced before the Ld. AO, which resulted certain additions in the hands of the assessee. We find that the additional evidence sought to be filed by the assessee is crucial for proper adjudication of the issue and goes to the root of the matter. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met if the additional evidence is admitted and the issue is restored to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh examination. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO, who is directed to decide the matter afresh on the basis of the additional evidence and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to file any further explanation or evidence in support of its claims before the Ld. AO. The assessee is, however, directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments during the course of the remand proceedings. The Ld. AO shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due verification of the additional evidence and after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.