2025 (2) TMI 1601 - AT - Income Tax

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 ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Delay of 117 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - non-compliance of notices - ex parte assessment passed u/s 144 HELD THAT:- There was a non-compliance of notices. This fact has been duly elaborated in the affidavit of the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that notices were sent on an e-mail ID which was not in use and the ITP whose e-mail ID was given earlier was no longer his authorised representative and none of the notices or order of the CIT(A) was served on assessee’s e-mail which was uploaded on the ITBA portal. Under these circumstances, we condone the delay of 117 days and also remit the case back to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh and pass a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and send the notices on the correct e-mail ID. Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh assessment proceedings after service of notices on the assessee's correct registered e mail and after affording opportunity of hearing; the appeal is 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.