Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order and also an application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, stating there was no reasonable cause and no affidavit was filed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the penalty order might not have been delivered to the assessee's email ID and a screenshot was produced as proof. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the penalty order was properly served on the assessee.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2013-14 Subramaniam Saravanakumar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No. 188, Sukrawarpet Street, Income Tax, Coimbatore 641 001. Non Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. [PAN:ACCPS5345Q] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee raised 14 grounds in his appeal and mainly challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal without condoning delay in filing the appeal.
At the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 04.09.2021. Against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 259 days in filing the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by rejecting the condonation petition on the ground that there was no reasonable cause and for not accompanied by an affidavit for the delay in filing the appeal.
The ld. AR Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate drew our attention to page 11 & 12 of the impugned order, the petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal explaining the factual reasons in detail. He vehemently argued that the assessee has not received the penalty order to his e-mail ID and the screen-shot taken from assessee’s e-mail ID was furnished as proof of the same before the ld. CIT(A) for consideration. However, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the petition for condonation and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issue on merits. The ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) may be directed to condone the adjudicate the issues on merits.
The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Upon perusal of the contents of the condonation petition which was reproduced at page 11 & 12 the impugned order, we note that the contention of the assessee is penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not delivered to the e-mail ID of the assessee and in support of his submissions, the assessee produced screen-shot taken from his e-mail ID before the ld. CIT(A), which fact was not disputed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the reasons explained by the assessee afresh, condone the delay and decide the issue on merits in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 13th March, 2025 at Chennai.