Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance. The assessee contended that due to a bonafide mistake, the reply meant for the quantum appeal was mistakenly uploaded to the penalty appeal, as both appeals had identically dated hearing notices. A rectification petition was filed but remained undisposed.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's bonafide mistake in uploading the reply to the wrong appeal proceedings and noted the unfair dismissal by the CIT(A). With both parties agreeing on a remand, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance when the assessee made a bonafide mistake in uploading the reply to a parallel penalty appeal instead of the quantum appeal.
Sections Cited
250, 69, 154, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2018-19) DRB Infrastructure (P) Ltd Vs. Dy.CIT Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) PAN:AADCD7676H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11/03/2025 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, for the A.Y.2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order u/ s 250 dated 11-03-2025 passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, New Delhi is not correct either in law or on facts and in both.
2. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in confirming the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer merely on the grounds that no reply was filed, ignoring the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition without giving an opportunity for personal hearing.
3. A) The appellant had duly prepared and filed a detailed written submission along with the paper book for the present quantum appeal; however, due to an error, the same was mistakenly uploaded in response to the hearing notice issued in the penalty appeal proceedings for AY 2018-19, which were running in parallel pursuant to identically dated hearing notices. B) The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the ex-parte order citing nonfiling and the appellant up on realizing the mistake, filed on 13-03-2025, an online rectification application vide acknowledgement no. 900954290130325, explaining the error along with written submissions, which remains pending disposal till date.
4. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in upholding the disallowance of sub-contract expenditure of Rs. 1,43,31,846/- u/s 690 as unexplained expenditure, ignoring the genuineness of the expenditure.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above ground (grounds).”
At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-compliance of the notices. He has pointed out that in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A), the assessee filed the reply on 04/03/2025. However, due to the reasons that the learned CIT (A) has issued 2 notices of same date i.e. 24/02/2025 in the quantum appeal as well as in the penalty appeal, there is a bonafide mistake in the reply uploaded by the assessee as the document reference ID mentioned was that of notice issued in the penalty appeal and therefore, the reply was uploaded in the penalty appeal instead of quantum appeal. Thereafter, the assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act but there is no order passed by the learned CIT (A) on the rectification petition. Thus, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it is a bonafide
Page 2 of 4 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd inadvertent mistake while submitting the reply in response to the notice issued by the learned CIT (A) due to the reason that 2 appeals were pending before the learned CIT (A) and the reply was mistakenly uploaded in the proceedings of the penalty appeal instead of quantum appeal. He has referred to the 2 notices issued by the learned CIT (A) both dated 24/02/2025 and the reply dated 04/03/2025 wherein the document reference ID as mentioned pertains to the penalty appeal u/s 271AAC(1) instead of the quantum appeal. Thus, he has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply and documents filed by the assessee.
On the other hand, the learned DR has fairly submitted that in view of the inadvertent mistake, the matter may be remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A).
Having considered the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the record, at the outset we note that the learned CIT (A) has issued 2 notices dated 24/02/2025, one in case of appeal against the assessment order and the another in case of appeal against the penalty order u/s 271AAC(1) of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed the reply as uploaded on 04/03/2025 along with the paper book. However, the document reference ID No. is given in the said reply of penalty appeal. Therefore, it is manifest from the record that due to the wrong document ID reference No.mentioned in the reply at the time of uploading the said reply did not reach to the learned CIT (A) in the quantum appeal and consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of notice. Accordingly,
Page 3 of 4 of 2025 DRB Infrastructure P Ltd in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to submit the relevant details reply and evidence.