Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return for AY 2020-21 and was selected for scrutiny. The AO made significant additions under Section 69C and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC. The assessee failed to comply with penalty notices, and the AO levied a penalty. The assessee's appeals to CIT(A)/NFAC were dismissed due to delay without condonation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC and condoned the delay. Due to the haste in passing the penalty order without proper opportunity of hearing, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC and whether the penalty order passed by the AO requires remittance for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271AAC, 69C, 274, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
O R D E R
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 11.7.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066622649(1) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:-
3.1 We have heard the both the parties on admission of additional grounds. In our opinion, all the facts are already on record and there is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts for the purpose of adjudication of above ground. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we inclined to admit the additional ground for the purpose of adjudication as there was no investigation of any fresh facts otherwise on record and the action of the assessee is bonafide.
At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 204 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee also drew our attention to an application for condonation of delay filed along with an affidavit dated 26.06.2025 stating the cause for such delay, which are reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience:
4.1 Perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is perceived that the explanation offered in the condonation application is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the specified period before this Tribunal, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31.3.2021 declaring Ningaiah Siddu, Mysore Page 9 of 11 total income of Rs.43,01,340/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under complete scrutiny through CASS. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act on 5.9.2022 and assessed on a total income of Rs.3,59,53,840/- by making an addition u/s 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.3,16,52,500/-. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act were initiated in respect of addition made u/s 69C of the Act. Since the assessee failed to comply with the penalty notices, the AO completed the penalty proceedings by levying penalty of Rs.24,68,895/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal.
Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent its case before the AO and accordingly, the AO levied the penalty of Rs.24,68,895/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee before the AO to substantiate his claim.
Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that assessee could not represent his case before the AO. Further, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal before him. The reason as submitted by the assessee is that the assessee does not have any e-mail ID and therefore, he was not capable of logging into the Income Tax portal and verifying the notices issued and order passed. Further, the email id given was of the former auditor and the assessee does not have access to the above said email id. After going through the above explanation, we are of the considered opinion that the explanation offered by the assessee is plausible and sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee, which prevented him from filing the appeal within the specified period before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, and accordingly, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the penalty order passed by the AO in a haste manner & without giving proper opportunity of hearing, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO to decide afresh in accordance with law after verifying the quantum of addition sustained by the First Appellate Authority. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th Sept, 2025