Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 and 148 for failure to disclose sale of shares, leading to an ex-parte assessment. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 2 months and 16 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the quantum case appeal for the same assessment year had already been remanded back to the CIT(A) after condoning the delay. Therefore, to maintain parity, the Tribunal also remanded the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh after condoning the delay and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and whether the penalty appeal should be remanded in light of the quantum appeal being remanded.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144, 271(1)(c), 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. PAN : ARSPK8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue by Shri Milind Debaje : Date of hearing 22.04.2025 : Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.08.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in; i. Concluding that the appellant's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was without any reasonable cause, rejecting the application and dismissing the appeal in limine. ii. Dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the ground challenging levy of penalty of appeal on merits.
2. The appellant pleads that the notices seeking information and fixing hearing were served via email through ITBA portal of which the appellant was not aware. On receipt of physical notice, the appellant sought professional assistance to file compliance which however remained due to events beyond the appellant's control at the tax consultant's office.
The appellant humbly pleads for a direction providing a final opportunity by restoring the appeal to the file of the AO/CIT(A) to enable him to place correct facts on record and ensure proper appreciation of his case in the interest of justice.
The appellant pleads for directions allowing the appeal and craves leave to, add to, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal
.”
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has furnished his return of income on 25.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3,13,818/-. On the basis of information that the assessee has sold shares of the value of Rs.37,89,525/- and not disclosed the same in its return of income furnished by the assessee, proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act were initiated and after getting approval from competent authority notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and later notice u/s 144 of the IT Act was also issued, however assessee remained non-compliant and did not furnished any reply to the above notices. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.41,03,343/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.3,13,818/-. The above assessed income includes Rs.37,89,525/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act since he was satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income. Subsequently, show cause notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was issued and served upon the assessee electronically to attend on 20.04.2022, however the assessee again remained absent and therefore by an order dated 12.09.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 11,70,963/-.
4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication since there was delay in filing of appeal before him about 2 months and 16 days. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
5. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFCA is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee also filed appeal against the quantum assessment order and a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed in in the case of assessee itself for the assessment 2013-14 has already set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the quantum case appeal back to his file to decide the issue afresh after condoning the delay. Accordingly, Ld. AR also requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the penalty appeal case and further requested to remand the issue of penalty appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue afresh in the light of decision of quantum assessment appeal case.
6. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raised any objection to the request of the assessee and submitted his no objection if the issue is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to be decided afresh in the light of decision passed in the case of quantum appeal case.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the quantum case as well as penalty case was decided ex-parte by the Assessing Officer and in both the cases the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since the appeals were filed belatedly. We further find that the quantum case appeal for assessment year 2013-14 has already been remanded back to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh after