M/S NEW INDIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur both dated 27/12/2018 for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2. Under the facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has e-filed the appeal in due time after it came to the knowledge of the AR of the assessee but the Hon’ble CIT(A) did not checked the online record before passing the order.

3. Under The facts and circumstance, the imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 340000 u/s 271D of the Act is bad in law and must be deleted.

4. That on facts and law, the initiation of proceeding U/s 271D are time barred, invalid and void ab initio.

5. The assessee may crave to amend, alter, modify or raise any other ground of appeal.”

5. At the time of hearing, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the record, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) had decided the case of the assessee ex parte and the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has raised objection for remanding the matter and submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) after giving several opportunities for appearance. It was submitted that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case, therefore, no opportunity should be given to the assessee and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed with cost.

3 ITA 76 & 77/JP/2019_ M/s New Indian Public School Samiti Vs Addl.CIT 6. Having heard the contention of the ld DR and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) ex parte. The ld. CIT(A) has stated in his order that initially the case was fixed for hearing on 09/08/2018, 18/09/2018, 14/11/2018 and the ld. CIT(A) issued notice fixing the case for hearing on 26/12/2018 by issuing a letter and stated that “On verification of record, it is found that you have not filed e-appeal. The I.T. Rule 45(1) amended from 01/03/2016 but you have not filed the e- appeal. Therefore, you are requested to file an e-appeal, otherwise your appeal filed manual will be treated as unrest.” On the above dates neither the assessee appeared nor any adjournment application on behalf of assessee was filed. Even before the Tribunal, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was the bounded duty of the parties i.e. assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Revenue authorities at all stages. Since, this was the assessee’s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before A.O. as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demand that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we decide to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and remand the matter

4 ITA 76 & 77/JP/2019_ M/s New Indian Public School Samiti Vs Addl.CIT back to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the assessee in the account of Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund/Prime Minister’s Care Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal on merits and without any sufficient reason, not to take further adjournments.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st October, 2021.