Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The appeal for AY 2017-18 was delayed by 144 days. The delay was attributed to the company's amalgamation, change in management, and issues in determining the correct appellate authority.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal, directing the assessee to cooperate and produce necessary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal due to company amalgamation and management change is justifiable? Whether the ex-parte orders of CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication?
Sections Cited
154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY
Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against separate Orders passed by CIT(A) order vide Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070359332(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070358367(1), both Orders dated 14.11.2024.
At the outset of hearing, it was noticed that the appeal filed for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is delayed by 144 days. In this regard, assessee has filed affidavit which is as under:
On going through the explanation submitted by the learned Counsel and by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : 1987 (2) SC, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Both these appeals filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) against the Assessment Orders passed by the AO vide Order Nos.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022448227(1) dated 16.12.2019 and ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032691992(1) dated 27.04.2021 respectively are ex-parte Orders for non-prosecution from the assessee’s side. The learned Counsel submitted that due to change of the management and merger of the company, notice issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be noticed as the notices might have settled in the spam folder, therefore, notices issued by the learned CIT(A) could not be responded to. He requested and undertook that if a chance is given to the assessee, assessee will substantiate with cogent materials.
On the other hand, learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that several chances were given to the assessee but assessee did not respond.
Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the entire material available on record and Orders of authorities below, we noted that assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the Assessment Order passed by the AO and during the course of appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued various notices but assessee did not comply with the notices. Accordingly, the CIT(A) passed Order on the basis of material available before him and dismissed appeal of the assessee.
Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of the AO with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for each appeal. Assessee has to pay the cost and produce necessary evidence to the AO before taking up the case and decide the issue as per law. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. In case of failure no second leniency shall be granted.It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.