KANAKARATHINA MEDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. IRO, NCW-10(6), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the penalty levied under Section 271B of the Act, with a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order by the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12. There was a delay of 26 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The CIT(A) had previously decided the appeal ex-parte after the assessee sought multiple adjournments.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) correctly decided the appeal ex-parte, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for penalty proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 03.07.2025 for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘26’ days in filing of this appeal, because, assessee was prevented by reasons beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay, for which, the Ld.DR didn’t raise any objection and hence, we condone the delay of ‘26’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee against the order of the AO u/s 271B filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) has given 10 hearings to argue the appeal however, the assessee sought adjournment every time. Final opportunity of hearing was given for 23.05.2025. On the said date neither any compliance was received the ld.CIT(A) nor any adjournment was sought by the assessee. Hence, ld.CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex- parte and upheld the order of AO on additions. Hence, assessee is further in appeal before us.
Before us also, none appeared for the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. The Ld. Addl. CIT-DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee is a habitual defaulter in prosecuting the case.
We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submission addressed by the ld. Departmental Representative. We are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee should be given one more opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to file all relevant evidences/documents to prosecute its case. This is a proceeding against order u/s 271B. However, we find that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding with regard to the addition and confirmed the addition made by the AO.
(AY 2011-12) M/s. Kanakarathna Media Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid factual position, we deem it fit to set aside the appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of appeal which relates to the levying of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) who shall proceed for de novo adjudication of appeal after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which, the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appellate proceedings as per law.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on the 27th day of October, 2025, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Karnataka vs. M/S Itd Cemindia JvKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Aman Motors vs. The Commissioner CGST & Ors.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Imperial Marketing vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi NorthDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Krishna Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 28 Oct 2026