BHAANE STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CAMP SMA PVT LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(2), DELHI, NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by the Assessee with a delay of 385 days and the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC disposed of the appeal ex parte without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit and the petition for condonation of delay submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is purely unintentional and caused due to circumstances beyond the appellant’s knowledge. Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee never received copy of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order since the e-mail ID provided in Form 35 i.e. ashwanikapoor@shahi.co.in belonged to Shri Ashwani Kapoor who left the organization midway in the year 2023.

The Ld. DR had no serious objection.

Heard rival submissions. On going through the petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit filed by the assessee, we see reasonable cause in the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the assessee. Thus, the delay is condoned.

Ld. Counsel submits that since the appeal of the assessee was disposed of ex parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to dispose off on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

The appeal of the assessee was decided ex parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) by sending the notices to the e-mail address provided in Form 35 even though the assessee has exercised the option for not sending any notice/communication to the e-mail. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also relying on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Maheshkumar Rajkaranbhai Shah in ITA No.1167/Ahd./2025 dated 04.07.2025 stated that on identical circumstances where the assessee has exercised option for not sending notices/communication through e-mail, however, in spite of such option the Ld. CIT(A) sent notices to the e-mail and dispose of the appeal to the ex parte the Tribunal restored the appeal of the assessee to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits.

Considering the decision and the submissions and the facts on record, we observed that even though the assessee stated in Form 35 that notice/communication are not to be sent to mail address, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has sent notices to the mail address provided by the assessee and disposed of the appeal ex parte. Thus, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide afresh the appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.