VASANTHA PERUMAL,SALEM vs. ITO WARD I(6), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 721/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the quantum assessment was already remitted back to the AO, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 38 days, citing a lack of 'Real Time alert' in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme and limited knowledge of online Income Tax proceedings. The assessee was unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until receiving a demand notice. The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order confirming the penalty should be set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 05.06.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.11.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed condonation petition along with affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing of this appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit for belated filing is that, there is no ‘Real Time alert’ in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2023. Therefore, the assessee nor his authorized representative have received any notices vide email or to their mobile. The assessee further stated that she did not possess much knowledge and education to follow the Income Tax proceedings in Income Tax Portal. The assessee came to know about the CIT(A)’s order only when he received the notice dated 06.01.2025 to recover the outstanding demand. Thereafter, the assessee took steps to contact the Income Tax professional and filed appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in a delay of 38 days. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits.

3.

At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A)’s order is ex- parte, since there was no compliance from the assessee to the four notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority.

4. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee nor his authorized representative have received any notices vide email or to their mobile. The Ld.AR further stated that the assessee did not possess much knowledge and education to follow the Income Tax proceedings in Income Tax Portal. Hence, the assessee failed to take note of hearing notices, resulting in non-cooperation of assessee during the appellate proceedings. The Ld.AR further stated that impugned CIT(A)’s order confirms the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act, whereas the quantum assessment in regard to levy of penalty has already been set aside to the AO by the CIT(A) vide order dated 24.10.2024. Therefore, it was prayed that the issue may be restored to the files of the AO to consider afresh based on the findings in the quantum appeal.

5.

The learned DR did not have a serious objection for the matter to be remitted to the CIT(A).

6.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. However, it has been brought to our notice that the quantum assessment has already been remitted back to the file of the AO by the CIT(A) to make fresh assessment. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned CIT(A)’s order confirming the penalty levied by the AO. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the files of the AO for fresh consideration along with the quantum appeal. It is ordered accordingly.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →