Invalid Service of Notice as Opted No For Email in Form-35: ITAT Overturns Ex Parte Dismissal, Remands Matter [Read Order]

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned an ex-parte dismissal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] citing invalid service of notices, as the assessee had chosen not to receive communications via email in Form 35.

Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here

Ram Bishal Sharma (assessee) faced an ex-parte dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) on 26.03.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12. The dismissal was based on the assessee’s alleged non-compliance with notices issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, sent via the e-filing portal and email IDs available in the ITBA system and Form 35.

Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the assessee appealed to the ITAT. The counsel for the assessee, argued that the dismissal was unjustified, as the assessee had selected “No” in Form 35 for receiving notices or communications via email.

The counsel submitted that the notices sent through email did not constitute valid service. The counsel added that no communication was established between the assessee and the department, and the assessee’s explicit preference in Form 35 was overlooked.

The Revenue submitted that the notices were duly served as per the delivery reports to the email IDs and that the assessee’s non-compliance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

The single-member bench, comprising Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member), observed that the assessee’s choice in Form 35 to No for email communications was a clear exercise of a privilege provided by the department.

The bench observed that no communication was established, and there was no evidence of the assessee responding to the department, even to seek an adjournment. It held that expecting compliance without valid service of notices was unreasonable and violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal referred to a prior ITAT Raipur decision in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT which addressed a similar issue of an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC. It also cited Supreme Court rulings, including Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union and Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar, citing that the right to be heard under Article 14 of the Constitution is fundamental, and appellate authorities must adjudicate appeals on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication and directed the CIT(A) to issue notices in accordance with the assessee’s Form 35 preference and provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The bench also instructed the assessee to comply with the hearing notices, noting this as the final opportunity. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates