VISHNU KUMAR KESARWANI ,PRAYAGRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

PDF

ITA 116/ALLD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 October 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)7 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The assessee's income for AY 2011-12 was assessed ex-parte under sections 147/144, and the subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was also dismissed ex-parte. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 393 days. The delay was attributed to non-receipt of notices on the designated email ID provided in Form-35, as notices were sent to an inaccessible email ID.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's claim of improper notice service by the CIT(A). The ex-parte appellate order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and all disputed issues regarding additions in the assessment order were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Key Issues

Condonation of delay in filing appeal; Validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders due to improper service of notices and denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Sections Cited

Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 147, Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 144, Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 250, Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 253(3), Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 271(1)(c), Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 282, Income Tax Rules: Rule 127

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH “SMC”, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Arora, Advocate

2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1063130244(1) of Addl/JCIT of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

(B) In this case assessment order dated 26/12/2018 was passed under section 147/144 of the I. T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.10,00,500/-. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer ex-parte qua the assessee. The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2024. The aforesaid order dated 21/03/2024 of the learned CIT(A) was also passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has failed the present appeal in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(C) The appeal filed by the assessee is beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal along with an affidavit. The application for condonation of delay is reproduced below for the ease of reference:

(C.1) Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and being convinced with the pleadings of the assessee, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

(D) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that reason for non compliance of the notices issued by the office of the learned CIT(A) are also the same that led to delay in filing of this application. He explained that the designated e-mail ID provided by the assessee in Form-35 (in which appeal was filed in the office of the learned CIT(A) was info@casks.in. However the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) were not served on this e-mail and therefore, the assessee was not aware of any notice issued by the learned CIT(A). He also submitted that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade or avoid hearings by the learned CIT(A) and the non compliance was solely because the assessee was not aware of the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, the assessee may be granted fresh opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A). The learned D.R. left the matter to the discretion of the Bench.