Case Law Details
Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, considered an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2025 for AY 2020-21. The assessee challenged, among other issues, the ex parte appellate order, alleged delay in filing the appeal, reassessment proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d) and 143(2), the addition of Rs. 46,66,600 under Section 68, and levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B.
At the outset, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly dismissed the appeal as being delayed by five days. It was pointed out that Form No. 35 specifically stated there was no delay, that the assessment order was dated 21.03.2025, and that it was served on the assessee only on 26.03.2025 through email. Since the appeal was filed on 24.04.2025, the assessee contended that it was within the prescribed limitation period.
The Department argued that since the assessment order was passed on the ITBA portal with a DIN on 21.03.2025, it should be presumed to have reached the assessee on the same day through the ITBA module, and therefore the CIT(A)/NFAC had rightly treated the appeal as delayed.
The Tribunal examined Form No. 35 and noted that the assessee had consistently stated there was no delay and had specified 26.03.2025 as the date of service of the assessment order. It observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded on the assumption that uploading the order on the ITBA portal constituted service on the date of uploading.
Referring to Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal observed that service of a notice or order is required to be effected by delivering or transmitting a copy through the prescribed modes, including post, courier, the manner provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or in the form of an electronic record as provided under Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Tribunal further relied on the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Nitesh Kumar Goyal Vs. DCIT, which held that mere uploading of a notice on the ITBA portal cannot be treated as valid service of notice.
Accepting the assessee’s contention that the assessment order was served only on 26.03.2025, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed on 24.04.2025 was within the prescribed period. Since the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal without admitting it for adjudication on merits, the Tribunal remitted the entire dispute to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084000511 (1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21.
2.The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC (“CIT(A)”), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), in so far as it is against the Appellant, is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, preponderance of probabilities on facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in passing the order ex parte without providing -an opportunity of hearingIMPtiltionfet44intleehtefristances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The impugned reassessment proceedings are bad in law, non est and passed in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The impugned reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and consequently, the assessment order is bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The mandatory procedures applicable for reassessment proceedings are not followed and consequently, the impugned proceedings are void ob initlo on the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act is non est, bad in law and without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. The appropriate sanction necessary for reopening the assessment was not accorded and consequently, the impugned proceedings are vitiated on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act is non est, bad in law and without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is non est, bad in law and without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. The notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is non est and bad in law on the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The impugned order passed under section 147 of the Act is non est, bad in law and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. The Appellant denies itself liable to be assessed at a total income of Rs. 46,79,110/- as against the returned income of Rs. 12,510/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 46,66,600/- being unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. The authorities below failed to appreciate that the rigours of section 68 of the Act are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. The Appellant denies itself liable to pay interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.
In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.
3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee drew our attention on the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by alleging thatthere is a delay of 5 days in presenting the appeal and the assessee has not sought any condonation of delay in Form No.35.
3.1 Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee in sl.no.14 of Form No.35 in response to whether there is delay in filing the appeal had categorically stated “No”. Further, in the said Form No.35, the assessee had also stated that the date of the order of AO is 21st March, 2025, however, the date of service of order/notice of demand was on 26th March, 2025. As the appeal was instituted on 24.4.2025 and therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal.
3.2 The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had categorically observed that the order under appeal was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and hence the order must reach to the assessee through the ITBA module on the same day i.e. on 21.3.2025 and accordingly the contention of the assessee relating to the service of order was rightly not accepted by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Undisputedly, on perusal of Form No.35, we observed that at sl.no.14 in response to whether there is delay in filing the appeal, the assessee had categorically stated “No”. Further, we also observed that the assessee had also categorically mentioned that the assessment order dated 21.3.2025 was served on 26.3.2025. On perusal of the order ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we observed that the appeal of the assessee was instituted on 24.4.2025 and accordingly the claim of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC however on the ground that assessment order was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and accordingly held that the order must reach to the assessee through ITBA module on the same day i.e. on 21.3.2025.
4.1 We are of the considered opinion that merely by uploading the order on the ITBA portal could not be treated as valid service of notice. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessment order was served on the assessee through e-mail only on 26.3.2025 and thereafter the assessee became aware of the fact that assessment order dated 21.3.2025 was passed by the AO and accordingly filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 24.4.2025 i.e. well within the prescribed period. The Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Nitesh Kumar Goyal Vs. DCIT reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 979 (Chattisgarh) has held that “merely uploading of notice on the ITBA portal cannot be treated to be a valid service of notice.” We are also of the considered opinion that section 282 of the Act also prescribe that the service of notice or order may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy to the person therein named (a) by post or courier services; or (b) in such manner as provided under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purposes of service of summons; or (c) in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the contention of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessment order was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.3.2025 and hence, the order must reach to the assessee through ITBA module on the same day is not correct and accordingly we accept the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was served on the assessee only on 26.3.2025 and therefore, the appeal is filed within the prescribed period.
4.2 Now having held that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and considering the fact that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not admitting the same for adjudication on merits, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh on the merit of the case in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2026
Author Bio
