Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2014-15. The appeals, ITA No. 17/GTY/2026 (quantum) and ITA No. 18/GTY/2026 (penalty), were heard together. The revenue's appeal was filed with a delay of 39 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which had allowed the assessee's appeal based on the finding that the assessment was framed against a non-existent entity. Consequently, the quantum appeal of the revenue was dismissed. The penalty appeal was also dismissed as it no longer survived.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is valid, and consequently, whether the subsequent penalty is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 18/GTY/2026 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A Sarmah, I.T.O., Tulsi Narayan Sarmah Path, Ward-1, Vs. Nehru Park, Jorhat-785002 Jorhat. (Assam). (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAJFA 5844 R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl.CIT Date of hearing: 13/03/2026 Date of pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R
PER: BENCH
The present appeals filed by the revenue arise from orders dated 10/09/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short, “the Act”) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)] for the A.Y. 2014-15. is the quantum appeal and is the penalty appeal. Since these appeals are interconnected, therefore, these are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. We would first take up quantum appeal in for the A.Y. 2014-15.
ITO Vs A Sarmah 2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the revenue is barred by limitation by 39 days. At the time of hearing the ld. CIT-DR explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the contentions of the ld. CIT-DR and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and, hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
We have perused the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and find that the appeal of the assesse has been allowed by the ld. CIT(A) by recording a finding of fact that the assessment was framed in the name of non-existent entity. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, we uphold the same by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed which is the penalty appeal. Since we have dismissed the quantum appeal of the revenue by upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the penalty appeal is no more survive and hence, we dismiss the same.
In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2026.