SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), THRISSUR
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, was levied a penalty of INR 1,00,000 under Section 271B for failure to get books of accounts audited. The appeal against this penalty was dismissed by the NFAC on the grounds that a similar appeal was already decided by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that this dismissal violated principles of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not dispute the finding that the CIT(A) had indeed confirmed the penalty earlier. Therefore, the appeal before the NFAC was considered a duplicate appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the NFAC's order and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the NFAC for being a duplicate violated principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
271B, 250, 44AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
[ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 29/05/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 08/06/2017, passed under Section 271B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The Assessee has also filed application seeking stay of recovery of the penalty amount. SA No. 74/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010
The only effective ground raised by the assessee as under:
“2. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that, as per order no. IТА-90/2017-18 dated 09.08.2019, passed by the CIT(A), Thrissur, the appeal against the penalty of ₹1,00,000 levied under section 271B for A.Y. 2009-10 has already been decided. It was therefore held that the present appeal has become infructuous and was accordingly dismissed. However, this reasoning is wholly unsustainable and against the principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(A) passed the order dated 09.08.2019 without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appellant was not given a fair chance to present its submissions or clarify its position in person. It is a settled principle that an order passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard is void in law and liable to be set aside. To seek for justification it filed an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and yet no opportunity was provided to the Appellant. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed on this ground alone.”
When this appeal was taken up for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. After perusing the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee, we proceeded to hear the Learned Departmental Representative for adjudicating the appeal on merits.
We have taken into consideration the grounds raised by the Assessee and the submissions advanced by the Learned Departmental Representatives and have perused the material on record.
The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a charitable trust. Vide Order, dated 08/06/2017, penalty of INR.1,00,000/- was levied on the Assessee under section 271B of the Act on account of failure to get books of accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the Assessee instituted the appeal before the NFAC on 08/12/2018. The said appeal was dismissed by NFAC vide, Order dated 29/05/2025. The NFAC noted that an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 08/06/2017, passed under Section 271B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2009-2010, bearing appeal No. ITA-90/2017-1), has already disposed off vide
2 SA No. 74/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010
Order, dated 09/08/2019. 7. Now the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.
The Assessee has challenged the aforesaid dismissal order passed by the NFAC before this Tribunal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard. We note that the Assessee has not disputed the findings returned by NFAC that the Ld. CIT(A), Thrissur has, vide Order dated 09/08/2019, confirmed the levy of penalty of INR.1,00,000/- under Section 271B of the Act. Thus, the appeal dismissed by the CIT(A) was in effect a duplicate appeal. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the NFAC and, therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal are dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed. In view of the fact that we have disposed of the appeal as aforesaid, the stay application moved by the Assessee is also dismissed.
In the result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee as well as stay application is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 22.08.2025. (Inturi Rama Rao) Judicial Member कोचीन Cochin; िदनांक Dated : 22.08.2025 vr/-
3 SA No. 74/Coch/2025 Assessment Year 2009-2010
आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आयु"/ The CIT "धान आयकर आयु" / Pr.CIT 4. 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण कोचीन / DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt.
