Vadivel Chandran Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
ITAT Bangalore condones delay – NFAC’s notices invalid as sent to email not mentioned in Form 35; Tax Appeal Restored: Incorrect Email Use Vitiates NFAC’s Ex Parte Proceedings; Natural Justice Violated: Ex Parte Addition Quashed Due to Service on Incorrect Email
Assessee, an employee of Cognizant Technology Solutions, purchased a flat in Chennai for ₹71.71 lakh, claiming that funds came from a ₹95 lakh housing loan from ICICI Bank & cash of ₹32.50 lakh received from his parents. AO disbelieved the explanation, noting lack of proof for source of cash deposits & made an addition u/s 69 treating it as unexplained investment.
CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition ex parte, as Assessee did not respond to three hearing notices. However, Assessee later explained that none of the notices or the appellate order were served on his correct email ID mentioned in Form 35. Instead, they were sent to the email of his CA in Karaikudi. He came to know of the appellate order only while filing return for AY 2025-26 in July 2025, causing a delay of 210 days in filing the present appeal.
Tribunal observed that notices were indeed issued to an email ID different from the one declared by Assessee. No contrary evidence was produced by Revenue to show that communication was sent to the correct address. Hence, the delay was held to be for sufficient cause, & was condoned.
