Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, which confirmed ex-parte assessments and levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c). The appeals were filed with a 64-day delay. Both the assessment and first appellate proceedings were conducted ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bonafide. It restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the penalty appeals were allowed, quashing the penalties, with liberty for the AO to re-initiate proceedings if required.
Key Issues
The key issues were the condonation of delay in filing appeals, the validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, and the consequential quashing of penalties under Section 271(1)(c).
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
Before: SHRIDUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”]even dated 13.08.2025 for the AYs2013-14& 2014-15. The penalties were levied 271(1)(c) of the Act vide orders dated 22.09.2022 & 12.09.2022.
At the outset, we note that the appeals of the assessee are barred by limitation by 64 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, 8/GTY/2026 & 10/GTY/2026 4. Since, we have already restored the assessment orders while adjudicating the quantum appeal of the assessee in & 09/GTY/2026 supra , therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalty in the case of the assessee would not mo survive. Further, the ld. AO is given the liberty to re- initiate the penalty proceedings afresh, if required. The appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.