Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution due to non-awareness of notices and proceedings. The assessee sought condonation of a 366-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, explaining the delay was due to non-awareness of the CIT(A) order and an attempt to avail the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 366 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the delay due to the assessee's non-awareness of the proceedings and the subsequent rejection of their VSVS scheme application. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the proceedings and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. Whether the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) passed for non-prosecution is sustainable.
Sections Cited
271D, 282
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 Madhusudan Sawdia
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Venkat Reddy Poreddy Vs. Addl. C. I. T HYDERABAD Rangfe 9 PAN:AITPP4141L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 02/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER
Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31/10/2024 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18.
There is a delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that, the assessee was not aware of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) and came to know about the same only on 23/12/2024, when the assessee approached his Counsel to inquire about the status of the appeal filed before the learned CIT
ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy (A) along with appeals filed by the co-owners of the land. The learned AR has further submitted that the assessee also wanted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax VSVS 2024 and therefore, sought the information from his Counsel in this regard. The Counsel suggested that the appellant can opt for the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme 2024 during the pendency of the appeal. However, after logging into the IT Portal, it was found that the learned CIT (A) has already disposed of the appeal vide order dated 31/10/2023. Thus, the assessee was advised to file further appeal before the Tribunal for availing the benefit of Direct Tax VSVS Scheme 2024. Accordingly, the assessee has filed the present appeal on 31/12/2024 after a delay of 366 days. The learned AR has pointed out that the assessee also filed declaration under Direct Tax VSVS 2024 on 25/01/2025, however, the said declaration was rejected on the ground that there is no appeal pending as on the specified date i.e. 22/07/2024. He has filed a copy of the rejection remarks dated 11/3/2025 in the declaration made under the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate but due to non- awareness of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). He has thus, pleaded that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned so that the assessee may settle the dispute under the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024.
On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 366 days is an inordinate delay and the assessee has given very vague reasons of no knowledge of passing the impugned order. Thus, the learned DR has submitted that the assessee does not Page 2 of 6
ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy deserve condonation of delay as the reasons explained by the assessee are not sufficient to condone such an inordinate delay.
We have considered the rival submission and carefully perused the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the cause of delay. The assessee has explained the reasons in paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit as under:
We have also perused the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) which has been passed ex-parte whereby the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned CIT (A) has given the details of six notices out of which there was no response by the assessee to 5 notices and in case of one notice, the assessee filed the letter seeking adjournment. The learned CIT (A) has not given the mode of sending the notice or email ID to which the notices were sent. The assessee is an individual and was completely dependent on the Authorized Representative/Counsel to participate in the proceedings before the learned CIT (A). The ex-parte order passed
ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy by the learned CIT (A) shows that there was no compliance to the various notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and therefore, due to non-participation on behalf of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thus, these facts suggests that the assessee was not aware about the proceedings and notices issued by the learned CIT (A) as well as the impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we find no reason to disbelieve the cause of delay explained by the assessee in the affidavit. Even otherwise, the assessee wanted to settle the dispute by opting for the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024 and filed the declaration on 25/01/2025 which has been rejected vide order dated 11/03/2025 stating the reasons that no appeal was pending as on specified date i.e. 22/07/2024. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal. Hence, the delay of 366 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy 7. At the outset, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal filed against the penalty of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 271D of the Act for non- prosecution. He has pleaded that the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication so that the assessee would avail the Direct Tax VSVS Scheme, 2024 to settle the outstanding tax dispute.
On the other hand, the learned DR has raised no serious objection, if the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
We have considered the rival submission and perused the impugned order of the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) has issued various notices to the assessee but there was no response on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any reply and written submission alongwith documentary evidence, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee while passing the impugned order. Thus, it is clear that the learned CIT (A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte due to non-appearance/ participation on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has already explained the cause of non-appearance as he was not aware about the notices issued by the learned CIT (A) and was depending upon the Counsel who was authorized to represent the assessee before the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, when the appeal of the assessee was not decided on merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the learned CIT
ITA 1406 of 2024 Venkat Reddy Poreddy (A) for fresh adjudication after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.