Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Delay Condoned as Notices Sent to Wrong Email; Assessment & Penalty Matters Remanded 

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 11330
Case Name
Sampath Reddy Vem Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2014-15
Advertisement

Sampath Reddy Vem Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

These two appeals by Shri Sampath Reddy Vem arose from the NFAC orders dated 23.05.2025 and 24.05.2025. Both matters concern AY 2014–15 and were heard together since the issues were common.

The Assessee had earlier undergone a first round of appellate proceedings, where ITAT had remanded the matter back to the AO. During the second-round remand proceedings, however, all statutory notices—including the assessment order—were emailed to a wrong email ID (the previous accountant’s ID) instead of the Assessee’s registered email ID as per the Income Tax Portal. Because of this erroneous service of notices, the Assessee remained unaware of the assessment proceedings and first learnt of the order only much later while checking the portal, causing a 397-day delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) refused to condone this delay and dismissed the quantum appeal in limine.

Before the Tribunal, the Assessee demonstrated that the non-receipt of notices was entirely beyond his control, and that there was no deliberate lapse. The ITAT verified the email records and held that the Assessee had established a genuine, bona fide, and reasonable cause for the delay. The CIT(A)’s refusal to condone the delay was found unjustified.

Accordingly, the ITAT condoned the 397-day delay, set aside the CIT(A)’s dismissal order, and restored the quantum matter to the AO for de novo adjudication with proper opportunity of hearing.

In the connected penalty appeal (ITA No.1230/Hyd/2025), the Tribunal noted that the reasons for non-appearance and delayed filing were identical to those in the quantum appeal. The penalty of ₹7,60,660 levied u/s 271(1)(c) was upheld by CIT(A) solely due to delay. Since the Tribunal already condoned the delay in the quantum case, the same reasoning applied. Therefore, the 305-day delay in the penalty appeal was also condoned and the penalty matter too was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in line with the quantum remand.

Both appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring full opportunity to the Assessee and fresh consideration by the AO

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,844

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.