Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals were filed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) which dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation. The assessee contended that they did not receive any notice of hearing for penalty proceedings and only became aware when recovery proceedings were initiated.
Held
The Tribunal held that the department sent the email id of a consultant instead of the assessee's correct email id and there was no proof of service of the penalty order or hearing notice. Condoning the delay of 1110 days, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) should be condoned when the assessee claims non-receipt of penalty order and notices, and whether the department properly served the notices.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Per Bench All these appeals of the assessee are against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji as per details given below related to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and for the sake of convenience disposed of by this common order:-
CIT(A) Order DIN Date Year 2349/Bang/2024 2013-14 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 27.11.2024 /1070693916(1) 2350/Bang/2024 2017-18 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 28.11.2024 /1070694391(1) ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 2351/Bang/2024 2018-19 28.11.2024 /1070694481(1) ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 62/Bang/2025 2014-15 27.11.2024 /1070694000(1) 63/Bang/2025 2015-16 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 28.11.2024 /1070694185(1) 64/Bang/2025 2016-17 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 28.11.2024 /1070694309(1) 65/Bang/2025 2019-20 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 28.11.2024 /1070694559(1)
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was barred by limitation and there was no valid reason for condonation of delay of 1110 days.
The ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee has not received any notice of hearing with respect to the penalty proceedings before the AO. When the Bench asked the counsel as to how assessee was aware of the levy of penalty, then he submitted that assessee came to know about the levy of penalty when the recovery proceedings were initiated against the assessee. The main plank of argument of the AR of the assessee is that the assessee never received the penalty order and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The ld. DR pointed out that the revenue has sent the order levying penalty by registered post at the address mentioned by the assessee and hence the CIT(Appeals) has correctly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. We have gone through the paperbook filed by the assessee from page 1 to 13. The assessee has filed the copies of the correspondence of e-mails received from the department in the penalty proceedings. We observe that the department has sent the email id of one Balaji Consultant instead of correct email id of assessee which is rujkudupi@gmail.com. We observe that this email id is also available in the e-filing portal of the assessee and has been mentioned by the assessee in its return of income. So far as the contention of the ld. DR that it was sent via Speed Post and is not returned to the department is concerned, we note that there is no proof of service of the order of penalty or the notice of hearing in respect of the penalty proceedings with the departmental authorities. It is settled position of law that in the case of individual assessee, condonation of delay has to be decided with liberal approach. Therefore, we condone the delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. to 2351/Bang/2024 & 62 to 65/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 6. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of March, 2025.