ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) for Fresh Hearing After Non-Service of Notices Due to Inactive Email

Recently, a company did not get the hearing notices due to a non-working email. The Tribunal found this unfair and sent the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, giving the company another chance to present its side.

The present appeal has been filed by a company named PCL Estates Private Limited (Appellant) against the Income-tax Officer (ITO), Ward-14(2)(1), Mumbai (Respondent), in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench “C”, Mumbai, before Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) and Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2014-15, and the final decision was announced on November 07, 2025.

The appeal challenged an order dated May 20, 2025, issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned order originated from an earlier decision made by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, vide order dated May 11, 2023, passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act.

Background of Case:

The assessee filed its income tax return (ITR) under Section 139 of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15. According to the assessing officer (AO), the company had bought two properties worth Rs. 8.90 crore and received unsecured loans of about Rs. 8.67 crore from two parties and invested Rs. 93,684,453 under the head ‘current investments’ in the balance sheet. The assessee received unsecured loans of Rs. 4,91,25,000 from M/s Flavour and Fragrance Ingredients and Rs. 3,75,92,033 from Kukreja Construction Co. The assessment was completed by the AO by treating Rs. 8.90 crore as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and adding it to the company’s income.

CIT(A)’s Decision

The assessee, dissatisfied with the action of the assessing officer (AO), then approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. However, no one appeared for the personal hearing on the scheduled date because the email ID given to the Income Tax Department was not working; it was not renewed due to internal disputes. Since no one appeared for the personal hearing, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer (AO).

Assessee, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The company’s director, Mrs Rupa Kukreja, filed an affidavit confirming that the company never received the hearing notices because their email was inactive. The assessee argued that it was denied a fair chance to present its case.

Tribunal’s Decision

When the tribunal analysed the case, it found that the company’s email was genuinely not functional and therefore notices were not properly served. However, the Tribunal noted that the company should have provided an alternative, working email.

Still, in the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to remand the case to CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee has now been instructed to provide a valid email ID and cooperate with the proceedings this time.

Final Outcome

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, meaning that no decision was made on the tax issue itself; however, the case will be reheard by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal emphasised that the assessee should get a proper opportunity to explain its case before any final decision is made.