Defective electronic service denied opportunity of hearing, so delay condoned and matter remitted for fresh adjudication after proper e mail notice.

Delay of 117 days in filing the appeal was condoned where affidavit evidence showed notices were sent to a former authorised representative's inactive e mail and the assessee did not receive notices on the registered portal e mail; these facts vitiated service and deprived the assessee of an opportunity of hearing. Because the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 and the appellate order was dismissed for want of prosecution without proper service, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and remitted the matter to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication after issuance of notices on the correct e mail and affording a hearing; appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the ex parte assessment passed under Section 144 and dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority for want of prosecution should be set aside and the matter remitted to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication in view of non-service of notices on the assessee's registered e-mail.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit explaining that notices and orders were sent to an e-mail address of a former authorised representative which was not in use by the assessee, that the assessee lacked familiarity with electronic communication, and that the registered e-mail on the portal was different from the e-mail where notices were served. It is recorded that the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 and the appellate order was dismissed for want of prosecution without the assessee having been served with notices on his current registered e-mail. The factual matrix shows non-compliance in service of notices by electronic means and an absence of opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In these circumstances, principles governing condonation of delay and fair opportunity require consideration of whether prejudice has arisen from defective service and whether justice warrants remand for fresh adjudication. The material before the Tribunal establishes a plausible explanation for the delay and a substantive reason to restore the matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration after proper service.

Conclusion: Delay of 117 days is condoned; the assessment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the assessing officer to decide afresh after issuing notices on the correct e-mail and after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

---