Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 310 days. The appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 270A by the AO, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A) when the penalty appeal was filed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that it is logical for the quantum and penalty appeals to be heard together to avoid contradiction. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to hear both appeals concurrently.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty appeal should be heard along with the pending quantum appeal before the CIT(A) to ensure consistency in orders.
Sections Cited
250, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA
Date of concluding the hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 27.03.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. In this case, the Registry has informed of a delay of 310 days in the filing of the said appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit for requesting the condonation of the same as under:
“1. That the appeal filed by the Assessee Company before the Dey. Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 02nd May 2024 passed by Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 01st August 2023.
Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited 3. That the Attorney of the Assessee company Mr. KALYAN BOSE was physically aged and unwell thus due to unavoidable medical emergencies the appeal could not be filed. 4. That the memo of Appeal has been filed on 06th May 2024 in the office of the Tribunal.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given, the delay is hereby condoned.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052531101(1) dated 02.05.2023, passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19.
2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO levied a penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide his order dated 01.01.2022. This penalty is seen to have been levied in terms of a quantum order dated 24.04.2021 through which several enhancements to the income were made. It is seen that the assessee did not make any worthwhile compliance before the Ld. AO and hence the penalty was levied in an exparte manner. Thereafter, before the Ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee did not make any presentation of facts and hence the impugned penalty was confirmed.
2.1 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITAT and has challenged the penalty levied. It is seen that as per the Ground No. 5, the assessee has mentioned the pendency of the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It has been mentioned that ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032665353(1) dated 24.04.2021 in respect of the same is still pending disposal.
2.2 The Ld. DR requested that this matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) so that he can hear both the matters together.
2.3 The Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited 3. We have considered the rival submissions and also gone through the record. We find that even though the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) or even the Ld. AO, but it is logical to hold that the quantum and the penalty should be heard together so that there is no contradiction between the two orders. In light of this, we remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for hearing the quantum and penalty matter together in the case of this assessee. The penalty is remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A), this case is treated as party allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2025.