TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Notices via ITBA portal held invalid service under s.282(1) and Rule 127(1); matter remanded for de novo hearing</h1> ITAT held notices issued through the ITBA portal were not valid service under s.282(1) of the IT Act and Rule 127(1), concluding the notices were not ... Valid method and manner of service of notice - HELD THAT:- From the order of the CIT(A) it would be clear that notices of hearing were issued through ITBA portal, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship [2024 (3) TMI 479 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. Thus, remand the matter back to the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal by the partnership firm challenges the CIT(A) order upholding assessment additions under ss. 40(a)(ia), 40A(3) and others, which raised total income from Rs. 4,84,650 to Rs. 9,79,700 for AY 2013-14. The assessee did not appear at hearing despite service via the ITBA portal. The Tribunal found that notices issued through the ITBA portal do not constitute valid service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Citing Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), the Tribunal noted the High Court's holding that 'service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service' and, following that precedent, remanded the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to dispose the appeal afresh. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
