OSWALD PEREIRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was likely unaware of the ex-parte order. The NFAC's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 69 days, claiming they were unaware of the ex-parte order passed by the NFAC. The assessee only became aware of the order upon receiving a show cause notice for penalty proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned due to the assessee's lack of knowledge of the ex-parte order. Whether the NFAC failed to consider evidence submitted by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN
O R D E R This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2021 of NFAC, Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.
There is a delay of 69 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. It has been submitted in an application for condonation of delay that the passing of the ex-parte order by the NFAC was not known to the assessee and he came to know about the same only when he received show cause notice under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), dated 01.08.2022, for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The delay in filing the appeal is after excluding the period during which the Covid-19 pandemic was prevalent and the period which has to be excluded owing to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of excluding period of delay during Covid period for the purpose of Limitation. According to the assessee, after the receipt of the show cause notice dated 01.08.2022, he came to know about the order passed by the NFAC. The appeal was filed on 17.08.2022 immediately after receipt of show cause notice dated 01.08.2022.
I have considered the submissions and I find that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is an ex-parte order. The appeal before the first appellate authority was filed by the assessee on 15.01.2019. Notice of hearing was issued on 10.06.2019 by the jurisdictional CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act. Thereafter the case was transferred to NFAC. NFAC issued notices on 24.12.2020 and 13.07.2021. The order of the First Appellate Authority does not mention anything about service of these notices. Besides the above, I find that there has been substantial lapse of time between the filing of the appeal by the assessee and the date of two notices issued by the NFAC, which is nearly two years. In the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the assessee is not aware of the passing of the ex-parte order by the First Appellate Authority. In this regard, I also find that pursuant to the first notice dated 10.06.2019 issued by the jurisdictional CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act prior to the transfer of the case to NFAC, the assessee has filed the written submissions with supporting documents on 28.06.2019. The same has not been considered by the NFAC. In these circumstances, I condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.
I am of the view that the documentary evidence to substantiate the agricultural income earned by the assessee has also been filed by the assessee along with the written submissions filed before the First Appellate Authority and since these documents are required to be considered for deciding the quantum of agricultural income, I set aside the order of the NFAC and remand the case to the First Appellate Authority for a decision on merits after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering other evidence brought on record by the Assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 274
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ramshrayashil Constructions PVT.LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of INDIAJharkhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Kiea Corporate Business Solutions vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Vrajman Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 2 Nov 2026
- Nimmakayala Padmavathi vs. The Union Of INDIAAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026