Service of notice at wrong Email Service & Ignored Adjournment Held Violation of Natural Justice
In an important ruling concerning faceless appellate proceedings, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has reiterated that an appeal cannot be dismissed for alleged non-prosecution unless the assessee is granted a real and effective opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that mere issuance of notices is not sufficient if such notices are not properly served or if the assessee’s adjournment requests are ignored without adjudication.
The case highlights one of the growing practical concerns in faceless tax proceedings where technical or communication failures often result in ex-parte orders despite the assessee attempting to participate in the proceedings.
In the present case, the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed ex-parte on the allegation that the assessee failed to comply with multiple notices issued during the appellate proceedings. The department proceeded on the assumption that repeated opportunities had been granted and since no effective compliance was made, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
However, the actual factual position presented before the Tribunal revealed a completely different picture. The assessee demonstrated that an adjournment request had in fact been filed in response to one of the notices issued during the proceedings. Despite this, the adjournment request was never disposed of or adjudicated by the appellate authority. Instead, subsequent notices were issued mechanically without first deciding the pending request.
More importantly, the assessee further established that crucial notices were sent to an incorrect and unrelated email address. As a result, the assessee never received effective communication regarding subsequent hearing dates. Consequently, although notices may have been technically generated by the system, there was no real or meaningful opportunity of hearing available to the assessee.
Before the Tribunal, it was strongly argued that merely issuing notices does not automatically satisfy the requirement of natural justice unless such notices are properly served and effectively communicated. It was submitted that ignoring a pending adjournment request itself amounts to denial of proper hearing. Further, proceedings become legally vulnerable when notices are sent to wrong or unrelated email IDs, particularly in faceless proceedings where electronic communication forms the sole basis of participation.
The assessee contended that “non-prosecution” cannot be presumed merely because responses were allegedly not received, especially when the department itself failed to ensure proper service of notices and failed to dispose of the adjournment application already on record.
After examining the factual matrix, the Hon’ble ITAT accepted the assessee’s contentions and found serious procedural lapses in the conduct of appellate proceedings. The Tribunal observed that the adjournment request filed by the assessee had remained unattended and unadjudicated. It further noted that notices were not served at the correct email address and therefore the assessee was effectively deprived of meaningful opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It reiterated that faceless proceedings cannot become “hearing-less” proceedings and procedural fairness must be maintained even in digital assessment and appellate systems.
Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the ex-parte appellate order and restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed that adequate and proper opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee before passing any order afresh.
This ruling carries significant importance for taxpayers facing ex-parte orders in faceless proceedings. The judgment reinforces that valid service of notice, disposal of adjournment requests, and grant of effective opportunity are not mere technical formalities but essential safeguards under the principles of natural justice. The decision also serves as an important reminder that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed merely for administrative convenience in faceless tax administration.
The copy of the order is as under:
