GE HEALTHCARE GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] has grossly erred in not admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits, without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thereby acting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice which is not tenable under the law.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in refusing to admit the appeal for adjudication on the ITA No(s). 3243/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2008-09 GE Healthcare Global Pvt. Ltd. purported ground of delay in filing, without appreciating that the appellant had duly filed the appeal within the prescribed time limit under Section 249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, i.e., within thirty days from the date of service of the order passed by the Ld. AO.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty in respect of additions/disallowances made in the order passed under section 144/144C(13)/254/144/144C(3) of the Act dated 31 March 2016, without appreciating that such additions/disallowances have already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order passed under section 250 of the Act dated 26 December 2019, and as such, the very basis for levy of penalty does not survive.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, and without prejudice to Ground No. 3 above, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, which is bad in law, as the said order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, including but not limited to the failure to provide the assessee with a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to the imposition of penalty.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, and without prejudice to Ground No. 3 and 4 above, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof in respect of the disallowance on account of difference in sales amounting to Rs. 4,05,95,283/-.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, and without prejudice to Ground No. 3 and 4 above, the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the penalty without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars thereof in respect of the upward adjustment of Rs. 6,91,30,255/- on account of the appellant's international transaction of 'import of goods for trading'.

That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, rescind, or otherwise modify any of the grounds of appeal stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, as may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income declaring NIL income for AY 2008-09. The assessment was completed u/s 144, 144C(13), 254 and 144C(3) of the Act on ITA No(s). 3243/KOL/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2008-09 GE Healthcare Global Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.2016 determining the total income at ₹20,05,06,360/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed a difference in sales of ₹4,05,95,283/- based on the CIB data, which was added to the total income due to non- compliance by the assessee to the notice issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, an upward adjustment of ₹6,91,30,255/- was also made towards Arm's Length Price as determined by the Ld. TPO and upheld by the Ld. DRP. Subsequently, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings separately. On account of multiple instances of non-compliance by the assessee during the penalty proceeding, the Ld. AO concluded that the assessee was intentionally avoiding appearance and had concealed its income. Consequently, the Ld. AO imposed 100% penalty for a sum of ₹3,39,05,191/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the concealed income of ₹10,97,25,538/-. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 451 days. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not seek condonation of delay in Form No. 35 and failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause that delayed the filing of the appeal within the prescribed statutory time limit u/s 249(2) of the Act. He therefore, concluded that the delay was a result of deliberate inaction and negligence on the part of the assessee and declined to condone the delay and refused to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR contended that the penalty order was not served upon the assessee and filed evidence that the assessment order and the penalty order passed consequent to the ITAT's order were not served upon the assessee. The assessee has filed a paper book before us in which an application dated 05/07/2017 was filed for requesting a copy of the assessment order and the certifiedof the assessment order issued on 31/03/2016, which was received by the assessee on 19/07/2017. A copy of the order dated 20/12/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum appeal has also been filed, which is at page 9 to 107 of the paper book and it is claimed that the addition made has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and requested that the same may be upheld.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not represent properly before the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the appeal on merits while the assessee contends that the appeal was filed in time as the penalty order was not served upon the assessee and had been obtained from the Ld. AO by the assessee, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and as it is stated that in the quantum appeal the addition has been deleted, , therefore, the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO for re- computation of the penalty on the basis of the findings in the quantum appeal against the additions made and considering the order giving effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, all the Grounds of appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11th June, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 11.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order