Non-receipt of Orders Due to Email and Mobile Contact Details of CA Being Used Instead of Taxpayer: ITAT Condones Delay:

Non-receipt of Orders Due to Email and Mobile Contact Details of CA Being Used Instead of Taxpayer: ITAT Condones Delay

The ITAT excused a 40-day delay in appeal filing after finding that assessment orders were not received by the assessee because communications were sent to the CA’s email and mobile.

ITAT Permits Delay Due to Non-Receipt of Orders Sent to CA's Contact

authorCA Pratibha GoyaldateApr 12, 2025
Last update on Apr 12, 2025

Table of Contents

Non-receipt of Orders Due to Email and Mobile Contact Details of CA Being Used Instead of Taxpayer: ITAT Condones Delay The assessee is a private limited company engaged in software-related services. Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were initiated for AYs 2013–14 to 2016–17 based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding cash deposits in the company’s bank accounts. For AY 2017–18, the assessment was completed ex parte under Section 144 based on alleged cash deposits of ₹5.67 crore during the demonetization period in an HDFC Bank account. The CIT(A), NFAC passed ex parte orders without adjudicating on merits or properly considering submissions and evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee contended that the delay was due to non-communication of orders to the assessee, as appellate communications were sent to the engaged Chartered Accountant. Reassessment proceedings were initiated mechanically using identical reasons for multiple years, without independent application of mind. As per the Assessee, the AO relied solely on borrowed satisfaction and did not verify or inquire independently. CIT(A)’s ex parte orders ignored detailed legal and factual submissions uploaded with acknowledgments. Additions were made without justification under Sections 68, 69, and 69A, based only on unexplained bank deposits.

Tribunal Order:

The tribunal found the delay of 40 days in filing the appeals to be supported by reasonable cause, citing non-receipt of orders due to email and mobile contact details of counsel being used instead of the company’s own. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

About Author

CA Pratibha Goyal

Co Founder

CA Pratibha Goyal is Chartered Accountant qualified in 2016, is a Member of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India having wide experience in the field of Auditing, Taxation, ROC, GST and Secretarial matters etc. She has written over a thousand articles & has made several videos on topics related to Auditing & Taxation. As a Speaker she has delivered various sessions on various branches of NIRC of ICAI.
Studycafe
New Delhi, Delhi, India
1486
Up Next

Loading suggestions…