The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has clarified a critical procedural issue: uploading an assessment order on the ITBA portal does not amount to valid service under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal remitted the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing that service must comply with statutory modes prescribed in Section 282, including electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Hiringhut Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC) dated 23.12.2025. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal, and the assessee had not sought condonation of delay in Form No. 35.
Key Facts
- The Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order on 21.03.2025 and uploaded it on the ITBA portal with a DIN (Document Identification Number).
- The assessee claimed that the order was served via email only on 26.03.2025.
- The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC on 24.04.2025.
- In Form No. 35, the assessee stated at serial no. 14 that there was no delay in filing the appeal and mentioned the date of service as 26.03.2025.
Procedural History
- 21.03.2025: AO passed the assessment order and uploaded it on the ITBA portal.
- 26.03.2025: Assessee claims receipt of the order via email.
- 24.04.2025: Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC.
- 23.12.2025: CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal on grounds of delay, holding that the order was deemed served on 21.03.2025 (date of upload).
- 08.04.2026: Appeal heard by ITAT Bangalore.
- 30.06.2026: ITAT pronounced the order, remitting the case to CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Relief Sought
The assessee sought admission of its appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, arguing that there was no delay in filing the appeal as the assessment order was served only on 26.03.2025. The assessee contended that the mere uploading of the order on the ITBA portal did not constitute valid service under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the ITAT was whether uploading an assessment order on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or whether service must comply with the modes prescribed in the statute, including electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The assessee argued that the assessment order was served via email only on 26.03.2025, and not on 21.03.2025 (the date of upload on ITBA portal).
- Reliance was placed on the judgment of the High Court of Chattisgarh in Nitesh Kumar Goyal v. DCIT ([2025] 173 taxmann.com 979), which held that mere uploading of a notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute valid service.
- The assessee contended that Section 282 of the Income Tax Act prescribes specific modes of service, including electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that the ITBA upload did not comply with these modes.
For the Respondent
- The Department contended that the assessment order was passed in ITBA with DIN on 21.03.2025, and hence, it must be deemed to have been served on the assessee on the same day.
- The Department relied on the CIT(A)/NFAC’s observation that the assessee’s claim of service on 26.03.2025 was incorrect and that the appeal was filed with a delay of 5 days.
The Court's Analysis
The ITAT examined the provisions of Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes the modes of service of notices or orders. The section states that service may be effected:
- By post or courier services; or
- In the manner provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for service of summons; or
- In the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC had erred in holding that the mere uploading of the order on the ITBA portal constituted valid service. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in Nitesh Kumar Goyal v. DCIT, which held that uploading a notice on the ITBA portal alone does not amount to valid service.
"Merely uploading of notice on the ITBA portal cannot be treated to be a valid service of notice."
The ITAT held that the assessee’s claim of service on 26.03.2025 was plausible, and accordingly, the appeal was filed within the prescribed period. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 282 requires compliance with statutory modes of service, and the ITBA upload did not satisfy this requirement.
The Verdict
The ITAT partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed that the assessee must be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the fresh proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Service of Notices Must Comply With Statutory Modes
- Section 282 of the Income Tax Act prescribes specific modes of service, including electronic records under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Mere uploading on the ITBA portal does not satisfy this requirement.
- Practitioners must ensure that service complies with the prescribed modes to avoid procedural dismissals.
ITBA Portal Upload Alone Is Not Sufficient
- The judgment reinforces that uploading an order or notice on the ITBA portal does not constitute valid service. Service must be effected through recognized modes, such as email or post, in compliance with Section 282.
- Assessees should verify the date of actual receipt of orders/notices and not rely solely on the date of upload.
Condonation of Delay Applications May Be Avoided
- Where service is disputed, assessees can argue that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period based on the actual date of service, as held in this case.
- This reduces the need for condonation of delay applications where the delay is procedural and not substantive.
