SANJEEV KUMAR THROUGH LEGAL HEIR,FARIDKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-I LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that merely uploading a notice on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard. The assessee contended that no proper notice of hearing was served, as it was only uploaded on the Income Tax Portal.
What were the issues?
Whether uploading a notice on the Income Tax Portal amounts to proper service of notice on the assessee. Whether an ex-parte order passed without effective service of notice is sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Sanjeev Kumar बनाम The DCIT Through Legal Heir Archana Rani, CC-1, Ludhiana Wife Chanan Ram Rakesh Kumar, 54 New Grain Market, Faridkot, Punjab- 151203 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFQPK1927B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/03/2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/04/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana dt. 12/07/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. At the outset, the Id. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to 2. the impugned order of the Id. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld. CIT(E) has summarily rejected the appeal of the assessee without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. He has submitted that no notice of date of hearing was served by the ld. CIT(E), either through physical mode, through e-mail or registered post etc. That the notice of date of hearing was allegedly uploaded on Income Tax Portal and the assessee was not aware of uploading of any such notice regarding date of hearing. Referring to Rule 127(2)(b), it was submitted that for communication delivered or transmitted electronically, it is essential that the same be addressed at the email address of the assessee and which has not happened in the instant case. It was accordingly submitted that no service of notice was ever affected on the assessee and therefore, in interest of justice, the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent its case and the matter be remanded to the file of ld CIT(E) to decide the same afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee.
The Id. DR has relied on the order of the ld CIT(A), at the same time, has 3. not expressed any reservation where the matter is remitted back to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available 4. on record. Merely uploading of notice about the scheduled date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal is not an effective service of notice as per the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 127(2)(b) of Income tax Rules. The same is hereby set aside with a direction to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh after giving proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The Id. CIT (A) will serve notice of hearing on the assessee through physical mode as well as through electronic mode on the email address provided by the assessee. The assessee will participate in the proceedings and submit necessary information and documentation as called for and as advised.
The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 282
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Mohd. Abrar, Bulandshahar vs ITO Ward 2(3)(2), BulandshaharITA 8343/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ram Chandar Jaisawal, Siddhartha Nagar vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 861/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Kavithak, Coimbatore vs Non Coop Ward4(3), CoimbaotoreITA 2258/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- All Indian Ski & Hide Tanners and Merchants… vs CIT(E), ChennaiITA 2115/CHNY/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026