9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al question of law arises for determination on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 The appellant/assessee herein, who is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of computer system and its accessories, filed income-tax return on 31.03.2014 for the assessment year 2013-14 showing a total income of Rs.16,87,250/-. On 28.03.2016, the original assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1961, whereby the total income of the appellant/assessee was assessed as Rs. 1,50,84,533/- by estimating net profit @ 8% of sales and thereby making addition of Rs.1,33,97,283/-. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, dated 28.03.2016, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur (for short the "CIT(A)"), which stood dismissed with the observation that "since the appellant failed to make compliance of the notices issued to them and only sought adjournments one after another, therefore, it indicates that the appellant is not interested in pursing the appeal and has nothing to say against the additions made by the Assessing Officer". Against which, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the appellant assailed the said impugned orders on the grounds that since in the appeal before the CIT(A) the appellant did not opt for service of notice through e-mail, therefore, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961 could not be said to be validly served on the appellant, as the same ought to have been served on the appellant physically by registered or speed post. Learned counsel vehemently argued that mere uploading of notices on the ITBA portal, would not exonerate the respondent-revenue authorities to serve physical notice on the appellant. As such, the appellant/assessee was deprived of its reasonable opportunity of being heard, due to which, great prejudice has been caused to them, as their appeal has been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered in the matter of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions) (2024) 1 HCC (P&H) 37 : 2024 SCC Online P&H 1931 to buttress his submission on the point. Hence, the present appeal be allowed in toto. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Ajay Kumari, learned counsel appearing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mail message" shall have the meanings as assigned to them in Explanation to section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 127. Service of notice, summons, requisition, order and other communication. (1) For the purposes of subsection (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act (hereafter in this rule referred to as "communication") may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub-rule (2). (2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be- (a) for communications delivered or transmitted in the manner provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 282- (i) the address available in the PAN database of the addressee; or (ii) the address available in the income-tax return to which the communication relates; or (iii) the address available in the last income-tax return furnished by the addressee; or (iv) in the case of addressee being a company, address of registered office as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the addressee to the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such income-tax authority. (3) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) or the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify the procedure, formats and standards for ensuring secure transmission of electronic communication and shall also be responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to such communication." 8. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the abovequoted statutory provisions, it is quite vivid that admittedly the appellant did not opt for service of notice through e-mail mode and, even in the e-mail address mentioned in Form 35, the appellant was not served with the notices in appeal, however, the same has been sent on appellant's old email address and also uploaded on ITBA portal. In this regard, the decision of the Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (supra) may be noticed herein profitably wherein it has clearly been held that service of notice on ITBA portal (e-portal) is not a valid piece of service and observed in Para-08 to 10 as under: "8. In view of the above, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
