SALIM MOHAMMED KABEER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the NFAC order for AY 2008-09 and 2018-19, where the Ld. AO had levied a penalty of Rs.17,06,091/- under Section 271(1)(c) after assessment under Section 143(3). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, upholding the penalty. The assessee argued before the ITAT that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence before the Ld. CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty without allowing the assessee sufficient opportunity to submit evidence. Acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause for non-submission, the ITAT restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the assessee is to be diligent and cooperative.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, thereby upholding the penalty, without providing sufficient opportunity to present evidence, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 143(3)A, 143(3)B, 271(1)(c), Rule 34(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHINBENCH “DB”, COCHIN
Per Shri Anikesh Banerjee (JM): Both the instant appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi[for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2008-09 and 2018-19, date of order 22/07/2025. The impugned order wereemanated from the order of the Income Tax Office ward 1(1),
2 ITA No.653 and 654/Coch/2025 Salim Mohammed Kabeer Trivandrumpassed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3) A, 143(3) B of the Act, order passed by National E Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 26.02.2001.
Both the appeals are related to penalty as well as quantum intwo different years. Both the appeals are taken together, heard together and disposed of by the common order. ITA No. 653/COCH/2025 is taken as lead.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the present appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008– 09 and 2018–19. The Ld. CIT(A) passed a common order disposing of both the quantum and penalty appeals relating to the aforesaid assessment years.The Ld. AO, after completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and eventually levied a penalty of Rs.17,06,091/–. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby upheld the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.
During the appeal before us the Ld.AR submitted the paper book containing pages of 1- 89which is kept in record. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee was not allowed to submit the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) though reasonable opportunity was denied.
The Ld.DR argued and stood in favour of the revenue authority.
3 ITA No.653 and 654/Coch/2025 Salim Mohammed Kabeer 6. In our considered view we find that Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty order of Ld.AO by an order of non-prosecution and the assessee was unable to submit the evidences and documents for argument before the Ld. CIT(A). Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee has demonstrated reasonable cause for the non-submission of documents before the Ld. CIT(A). It is also evident that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and evidence, if any, before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider all such documents and evidence in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, so as not to prejudice the proceeding before the appellate authority. It is further directed that the assessee shall be diligent and fully cooperative in the set-aside proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITA No. 654/COCH/2025 7. The facts and circumstances in the above appeal, ITA No. 653/COCH/2025 is identical to ITA No.654/COCH/2025, which we have already decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the decision arrived at above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal ITA No. 654/COCH/2025 also and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4 ITA No.653 and 654/Coch/2025 Salim Mohammed Kabeer 8. In the result, both appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No. 653/COCH/2025 and ITA No. 654/COCH/2025 are allowed statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th day of November 2025 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,�दनांक/Dated: 13/11/2025 Disha Raut, Stenographer
Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. ��तवाद�/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु�त CIT 3. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आय.अपी.अ�ध.,/DR, ITAT, 4. COCHIN गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, COCHIN
