Kiran Kumar Soma Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Denied Email Service, Delay Excused: ITAT Hyderabad Condones 294 Days & Restores Appeal
Hyderabad ITAT ‘DB-A’ Bench, in Kiran Kumar Soma vs. ITO (ITA No.1318/Hyd/2024, AY 2014-15, order dated 24.12.2025), condoned a substantial delay of 294 days and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A), restoring the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
The assessee had expressly denied consent for service of notices through email while filing Form No.35 and had clearly mentioned his physical address for service. However, the CIT(A) issued notices only through email, without serving them at the physical address. As a result, the assessee remained unaware of the appellate proceedings and the order, and came to know of it only when recovery proceedings were initiated by the Department.
Accepting the affidavit and records, the Tribunal held that the failure of the appellate authority to follow the mode of service chosen by the assessee constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The delay was held to be neither intentional nor deliberate, and procedural lapses by the Department cannot defeat substantial justice.
On merits, the ITAT observed that the appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, amounting to violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting proper opportunity. The assessee was directed to co-operate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by Shri Kiran Kumar Soma (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 29.12.2023 for the A.Y. 2014-15.
2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 294 days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. For condonation of the said delay, the assessee has filed a petition along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that, while filing Form No. 35, the assessee had specifically denied consent for communication through email in the personal information section. He further invited our attention to Column No. 17 of Form No. 35, wherein the assessee had clearly provided the physical address for service of notices by the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite such specific denial of email communication, the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were sent through email, and no notice was served at the physical address furnished by the assessee. It was submitted that, due to the above lapse, the assessee could not come to know either about the issuance of notices by the Ld. CIT(A) or about the passing of the appellate order in time. The assessee became aware of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only in November 2024, when the Revenue authorities contacted the assessee in connection with recovery of outstanding demand. Immediately thereafter, the assessee approached a tax consultant and filed the present appeal on 19.12.2024. Thus, the delay of 294 days occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee and not on account of any negligence or deliberate inaction. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication on merits.
3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) opposed the condonation petition and submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the condonation petition, affidavit, and the personal information furnished in Form No. 35. On perusal of the same, we find that the assessee had explicitly denied consent for communication through email and had clearly mentioned the address at which notices were required to be served. In spite of this, the notices were issued through email and not served at the address provided by the assessee. In our considered view, this lapse prevented the assessee from effectively participating in the appellate proceedings and from knowing about the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) within time. We are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Keeping in view the settled principle that procedural delays should not come in the way of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 294 days. Accordingly, the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits.
5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2) The learned CIT (A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing proper opportunity to the appellant therein.
3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in determining the total income at Rs.7,05,16,000/-.
4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the actual amount incurred by the appellant in acquisition of the property was only Rs.2 crores because of various defects in the title the appellant did not spend Rs.7,05,16,000/- but spent only Rs. 2,00,00,000/-.
5) The learned CIT (A) ought to have found that even the amount of Rs.2 crores was properly explained by the appellant and, therefore, no addition should have been made by the Assessing Officer.
6) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.”
6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. A.O”) under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 27.12.2016 for the relevant assessment year. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO.
7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that, as explained in the condonation petition, despite specific denial by the assessee for service of notices through email, the Ld. CIT(A) issued all notices only through email. As a result, the assessee could not effectively participate in the appellate proceedings and could not comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was contended that the appellate order was thus passed without granting proper opportunity of being heard, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to prosecute the appeal on merits.
8. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that adequate opportunity was already granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no further opportunity is warranted.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As discussed above, while adjudicating the condonation petition, we have already recorded a finding that the assessee had specifically denied consent for communication through email, and despite the same, notices were issued only through email. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). It is a settled legal position that appellate proceedings should be conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice, and an assessee should be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is at liberty to file all submissions and evidence in support of his claims. We further direct the assessee to cooperate in the remand proceedings and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th December 2025.
