KAMYAB EXPORTS (P) LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals with a significant delay, citing issues with online compliance and the faceless regime. The CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing appeals due to online compliance issues should be condoned, and whether ex-parte orders passed without a proper hearing are sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
O R D E R Per Bench CIT(A), of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 15.3.2024 in Appeal No. 15.3.2024 in Appeal No. NFAC/2008- 09/10155871 for the assessment year r the assessment year 2009-10 in the matter 10 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 250 under section 143(3) r.w.s 250 of the Act. is an 539/CTK/2014 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld CIT(A), dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 15.3.2024 in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2009 for the assessment year 2009-10.
P a g e 1 | 4 to 539/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2009-10
Shri P.R.Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.
In both the appeals, there is delay of 196 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits, wherein, the reason stated in not filing the appeals on time is that due to online service of notice, consequential orders and non-verification or inaction or misdemeanor i.e. latches & lapses of the authorized representative of the assessee, the appeals could not be filed, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to unfortunate and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ld AR of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of appeals is attributable to online compliance of faceless regime. Ld AR submitted that the delay in filing of appeals may be condoned.
AR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has passed the exparte order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and in regard to ld AR submitted that the penalty has been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of exparte order passed by the CIT(A). He prayed that both the appeals be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
P a g e 2 | 4 to 539/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2009-10
In reply, ld Sr. Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee and argued that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable due to abnormal delay. Ld Sr DR also submitted that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeal before the ld CIT(A) and, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and dismissed the same in limine.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that ld CIT(A) has passed exparte order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10 has also been passed as no compliance was made by the assessee before him. It is stated by ld AR of the assessee that due to non-verification of income tax portal, the appeal orders were not in the knowledge of the assessee. For this proposition, the assessee has filed affidavit. When technicality is pitted against substantial justice, technicalities are always step down and substantial justice should prevail. This being so, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of the appeals before the ld CIT(A) is condoned and the issues in the appeals on merits are restored to the file of the ld AO for adjudication on merits subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each to be deposited within 60 days from the date of this order under the head “others” in ITNS challan 280 in the Account No.500 and P a g e 3 | 4 to 539/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2009-10 same is to be filed before the ld AO. In the event the cost is not paid, the orders passed by the ld CIT(A) and that of the AO would stand confirmed.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/12/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Kamyab Television Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.159, Alaka Unit-II, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026