LOHITH KUMAR,UDUPI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MANGALURU
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:-
ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024
& 62 to 65/Bang/2025
Page 2 of 4
ITA No.
Assessment
Year
CIT(A) Order DIN
Date
2349/Bang/2024
2013-14
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070693916(1)
27.11.2024
2350/Bang/2024
2017-18
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694391(1)
28.11.2024
2351/Bang/2024
2018-19
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694481(1)
28.11.2024
62/Bang/2025
2014-15
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694000(1)
27.11.2024
63/Bang/2025
2015-16
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694185(1)
28.11.2024
64/Bang/2025
2016-17
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694309(1)
28.11.2024
65/Bang/2025
2019-20
ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25
/1070694559(1)
28.11.2024
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. 3. 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). 4. The ld. DR pointed out that the revenue has sent the order levying penalty by registered post at the address mentioned by the ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024 & 62 to 65/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4
assessee and hence the CIT(Appeals) has correctly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. 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.
ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024
& 62 to 65/Bang/2025
Page 4 of 4
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. ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 17th March, 2025. /Desai S Murthy /
Copy to:
Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
By order