ITAT Mumbai Allows Appeals Where CIT(A) Notices Were Sent To Deactivated Email Address

Background Of The Dispute

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Mayur Govindbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai), dealt with three connected appeals arising from different assessment years but involving the same underlying issue—non-receipt of notices from the first appellate authority due to an email ID that had been deactivated.

The appeals related to:

  • Assessment Year (AY) 2011-2012 – ITA No.4177/Mum/2025
  • AY 2012-2013 – ITA No.4165/Mum/2025
  • AY 2016-2017 – ITA No.4179/Mum/2025

Since the core controversy and factual matrix were common across all years, the Tribunal issued a consolidated order, treating ITA No.4177/Mum/2025 (AY 2011-2012) as the lead matter, and applied its reasoning mutatis mutandis to the remaining two appeals.

Appeal For AY 2011-2012 – Core Facts

Orders Under Challenge

For AY 2011-2012, the assessee was in appeal against:

  • An order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, functioning as CIT(A), and
  • That order arose from an assessment order dated 30.03.2022 framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte, citing repeated non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee then carried the matter to the Tribunal, albeit with a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal.

Assessee’s Request For Condonation Of Delay

At the outset of the hearing before the ITAT, the assessee’s authorised representative focused on two reliefs:

  1. Condonation of the 51-day delay in filing the Tribunal appeal; and
  2. Setting aside of the ex-parte appellate order passed by the CIT(A).

To support this relief, the assessee filed a sworn affidavit narrating the circumstances in which neither the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) nor the resultant order had come to his attention in time.

Key Points From The Affidavit

The affidavit and condonation petition made the following assertions:

  • The appeal before the CIT(A) had been filed on 09.05.2022, and in Form 35, the email ID mentioned for communication was:

    “[email protected]”

  • According to the assessee, the corresponding domain “shlokmedia.com” had been surrendered in June 2022 due to a downturn in business operations. After surrender of this domain:

    • Access to that email account was no longer available, and
    • Business correspondence was shifted to a new email ID:

      “[email protected]”

  • The assessee contended that while the new email ID was used for regular communication, it was inadvertently not updated on the income-tax e-filing portal by his staff.

  • Consequently, all subsequent communications from the office of the CIT(A), including hearing notices, continued to be sent to the old, deactivated email address, resulting in:

    • Non-receipt of notices by the assessee
    • Non-appearance before the CIT(A)
    • An ex-parte dismissal of the appeal on 06.02.2025

  • The assessee further stated that he became aware of the CIT(A)’s order only in June 2025, when:

    • New tax consultants were engaged to handle his income-tax matters, and
    • Those consultants checked the records and informed him about the adverse appellate order.

  • On learning of the order, the assessee claimed to have actuated immediate steps for filing the appeal before the ITAT, which ultimately came to be filed on 19/20.06.2025, resulting in a 51-day delay.

The explanation was that both the delay before the ITAT and the non-appearance before the CIT(A) were driven by genuine, unavoidable circumstances, not by any deliberate negligence.

Department’s Objections

The Departmental Representative opposed the condonation request, broadly on the following lines:

  • The affidavit, though on oath, should not be accepted merely at face value;
  • No independent documentary proof had been produced to substantiate the claim regarding:
    • Surrender of the email domain, or
    • Transition to a new email ID;
  • Therefore, according to the Department, sufficient cause for the delay had not been adequately demonstrated.

ITAT’s Evaluation Of The Condonation Plea

Examination Of Record And Explanation

The Tribunal analysed the affidavit, the condonation application, and other material available on record.