Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders regarding quantum addition and penalty. There was a significant delay of 466 days in filing the appeal, attributed to a lack of 'Real Time alerts' and communication issues within the National Faceless Appeal Scheme. The assessment was completed ex-parte on best judgment basis.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient reasons presented by the assessee. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and if the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings and lack of proper opportunity to represent.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 147
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
आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.09.2023 and 27.02.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12.
& 723/CHNY/2025 2. The assessee has filed appeals against the CIT(A)’s orders in respect of quantum addition and penalty order. First, let us deal with appellate order in respect of quantum addition in ITA No.722/CHNY/2025.
There is a delay of 466 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.722/CHNY/2025. 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, the assessee received the appellate order in connection with penalty order dated 27.02.2025. On receipt of the CIT(A)’s order confirming the penalty order levied by the AO, the assessee contacted his representative, who is an Income Tax Practitioner but he was unable to guide him further course of action. Therefore, the assessee took the services of Shri T.S. Lakshmivenkataraman the current AR for proper professional guidance. On receipt of the penalty order, the Ld.AR checked the Income Tax Portal and found the appellate order in respect of quantum appeal has already been passed. Immediately the Ld.AR took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal against the quantum order and penalty order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee was unaware of the appellate order in respect of quantum appeal passed by the AO till he receives the & 723/CHNY/2025 appellate order in respect of penalty order. Therefore, there is a delay of 466 days in filling the appeal against the quantum order before the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessee has stated 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. 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.
At the very outset, we notice that the assessment has been completed on best judgment basis u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 28.12.2018. Further the CIT(A)’s order is also ex-parte, since the there was no response from the assessee to the notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority calling for filing documents / evidences.
The ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual acting as a broker in yarn business. It was submitted that since there is no ‘Real Time alert’ in the National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2023, the assessee nor his authorized representative have received any notices vide email or to their mobile. Consequently, the assessee was & 723/CHNY/2025 unaware of the notices and hence, could not represent his case before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.AR prayed in the interest of justice and equity, the issue may be restored to the files of the AO as a last opportunity for proper representation of his case.
The ld.DR submitted that adequate opportunities were provided from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A) and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was prayed the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The proceedings before the AO as well as the CIT(A) was ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to various notices issued. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the offices of the AO and the CIT(A). However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that the matter ought to be restored to the files of the AO with a condition assessee pays a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid within a month’s time from the date of receipt of this order and assessee shall produce the receipt for the & 723/CHNY/2025 said payment before the AO. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
AO. Since, we have already set aside the quantum appeal in to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication, we deem it appropriate to set aside the penalty order to the files of the AO to decide along with the quantum appeal afresh. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2025 at Chennai.