Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the Id. CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, which itself was based on an ex-parte assessment order issued after a notice under Section 148. The appeal to the Tribunal was filed with a delay of two days.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay. However, it dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's consistent failure to represent its case before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and found no justifiable reason to interfere with the Id. CIT(A)'s order or to restore the matter to the AO for readjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. 2. Whether an ex-parte assessment and appellate order should be restored to the AO for readjudication when the assessee fails to explain non-compliance and non-cooperation throughout the proceedings.
Sections Cited
148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
O R D E R
Per George Mathan, JM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Id. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.
The appeal of the assessee is barred by 02 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay of 02days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is heard finally.
It was submitted by the ld.AR that both the assessment order and order of the ld.CIT(A) are ex-parte orders. It was the prayer that the issues may be restored to the file of ld.AO for readjudication. 4. In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the ld.AO & ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act had been issued to the assessee. Multiple opportunities had been given to the assessee. The assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued. The assessee has admittedly filed appeal before the ld. CIT(a) within the time. Therefore, obviously the service of the assessment order is not in dispute. The assessee has not given any explanation as to why he has not represented before the Assessing Officer. Before the ld.CIT(A) the appeal has also been filed well within time. The ld.CIT(A) has issued multiple notices. Adjournment letter has also been filed on one date as is mentioned in page 3 of the assessment order. Therefore, it is also not the case of the assessee that notices have not been served. The assessee has not explained anything as to why the assessee has failed to represent its case before the ld.CIT(A). There seems to be a trend that when the issues get complicated and there are possibility of taking any legal stands for defending the order, the assessee adopts delay tactics so as to get the time in the reopening could expire and then in the set aside proceedings to recoup such legal issues thereby barring the revenue from defending its stand. As the assessee has been unable to substantiate any reason as to why there has been non-compliance before the Assessing Officer as also before the ld.CIT(A), nor has the assessee been able to point out any error in the findings of the ld.CIT(A) on merits, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the ld.AR that the issues in this appeal should be restored to the file of ld.AO. In these circumstances, as the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment prceedings nor in the appellate proceedings, nor has the assessee been able to provide any justifiable reason for its failure to represent itself before the assessment authorities or the appellate authorities, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the same stands confirmed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025.