Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals against assessment orders and penalty orders, which were dismissed by the CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. The assessee claimed to be prevented by sufficient cause (medical grounds) for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and also alleged lack of reasonable opportunity during assessment and penalty proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the sufficient cause for delay due to medical reasons and found that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunities during assessment and penalty proceedings. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh denovo assessment and penalty orders after providing reasonable opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before CIT(A) was condonable due to sufficient cause, and whether the assessee was afforded reasonable opportunities during assessment and penalty proceedings.
Sections Cited
249(3), 147, 144, 148, 69C, 69, 234A, 234B, 243C, 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b), 270A, 115BBE, 271AAC(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI SUDHHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
ITA Nos. 453 to 463/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 9 (1.1) The appeals vide ITA. No.457/LKW/2024, ITA. No. 460/LKW/2024 and ITA. No.461/LKW/2024, pertain to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. The appeal vide ITA. No.463/LKW/2024, pertains to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 270A of the Act for assessment year 2017- 18. The assessee’s appeals against the aforesaid orders levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and under section 270A of the Act were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide separate impugned appellate orders. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act; and the assessee’s aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these eleven appeals are being hereby disposed ofs through this consolidated order.
(2). The grounds of appeal are as under: -
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148.
2. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.11,09,840/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.
4. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.4,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act.
5. The order passed by the Ld. AO is against principles of natural justice.
6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).”
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c) 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,22,195/ 4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.”
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 2,12,937/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act.
4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 18,20,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act.
5. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 6,41,950/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.
6. The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice.
7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the 1.T. Act 1961.
8. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) .
9. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.” to 463/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 9
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c)
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 8,26,540/-.
4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal
.” ITA. No.457/LKW/2024
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c)
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 10,37,099/-.
4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.458/LKW/2024
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.0 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 24,60,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act.
4. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 9,31,940/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.
5. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the I.T. Act 1961.
7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c).”
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s !47 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 7,62,311/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act.
4. The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice.
5. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the 1.T. Act 1961.
6. On the basis of facts and Circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.” ITA. No.460/LKW/2024
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c)
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,37,452/-.
4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” ITA. No.461/LKW/2024
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 271(1)(c)
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 2,06,540/-.
The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice.
The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.”
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 148.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Authorities below u/s 147 r.w.s 144 is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. Authorities below needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 7,10,374/- as business income of the assessee.
4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs. 34,42,331/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
5. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in levying the tax u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 1961.
The order passed by the Ld. Authorities below is against principles of natural justice.
7. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 243C of the of the I.T. Act 1961.
On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Authorities below have erred both in law as well as on facts in initiating the penalty u/s 270A and 271AAC(1).
The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any of the above grounds of appeal
.” ITA. No.463/LKW/2024
1. On facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld A.O u/s 270A is bad in law and without jurisdiction and needs be quashed as the same is passed before service of notice u/s 270A
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO imposing penalty u/s 270A is bad both in the eye of law and on facts, as the same is not served on the assessee within time allowed. The order passed by Ld. AO needs be annulled being barred by limitation.
3. The Ld. AO. has erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 33,359/-.
4. The order passed by the Ld. A.O. is against principles of natural justice. to 463/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 9 5. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend and delete any grounds of appeal.” (2.1). At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the Assessee submitted that the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause”, on medical grounds, from filing the appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) within the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act. He also drew our attention to medical papers of the assessee in this regard. Further, he submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the aforesaid assessment orders and also the aforesaid assessment orders levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and under section 270A of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of these submissions, he submitted that the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment orders and penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act/under section 270A of the Act for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for the Revenue expressed no objection to this request made by the Ld. AR for the Assessee.
(2.2). We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials available on record. We are satisfied on consideration of the aforesaid medical reasons, that the assessee was prevented by “sufficient cause”, on medical grounds, from filing the appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) within the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). Further, we are also satisfied that the assessee did not get reasonable to 463/LKW/2024 Page 8 of 9 opportunities during the assessment proceedings in the office of the Assessing Officer and during the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act/under section 270A of the Act. In view of the foregoing and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this; we set aside the aforesaid impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute regarding the additions made in the assessment orders to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh denovo assessment orders in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Similarly, we also set aside the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore all the issues regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and also regarding penalty under section 270A of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo orders, if, deemed fit, after passing the aforesaid denovo assessment orders in accordance with law, and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions.
In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/02/2025.