Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (two for quantum and two for penalty under Section 271(1)(c)), which were dismissed by the CIT(A) as time-barred. The assessee claimed delayed receipt of assessment orders, leading to delayed filing of appeals, and argued that the CIT(A) decided the matters ex-parte without seeking explanations.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to inquire into the belated service of assessment orders and decided penalty appeals ex-parte without adhering to Section 250(6). Consequently, all appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to provide detailed reasons for the belated receipt of orders.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing appeals as time-barred without affording an opportunity to explain the delay in receipt of assessment orders, and whether principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) were violated.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 143(3), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The present appeals of the assessee are arising out of orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as detailed below: Sl. Appeal No. AY Order DIN & Notice Section No. dated Order No.
ITA 2013- 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 271(1)(c) No.65/Coch/ 14 250/2024-25/ of the 2025 1070970109(1) Act 2. ITA 2013- 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 143(3) No.66/Coch/ 14 250/2024-25/ of the 2025 1070968864(1) Act 3. ITA 2014- 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 271(1)(c) No.67/Coch/ 15 250/2024- of the 2025 25/1070970443(1) Act 4. ITA 2014- 16.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 143(3) No.68/Coch/ 15 250/2024- of the 2025 25/1071256438(1) Act to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam Page 2 of 4 2. Out of the present four appeals of the assessee, two appeals are for quantum and two appeals are for penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A).
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the appeals filed before ld. CIT(A) were time barred. In other words, the appeals were not filed within 30 days of the passing of the assessment orders.
We are taking the assessment year 2013-14 as a lead year and discussing the facts of this year. It is the case of ld. CIT(A) that the impugned order for AY 2013-14 has been passed on 29.3.2022, and the assessee is contending that the assessee has been received the order of assessment on 10.10.2022 and the assessee filed appeal on 14.10.2022. Similar are the facts for AY 2014-15. In that year, the assessment order is passed on 26.3.2022, which has been received by the assessee on 10.10.2022 and the appeal was filed on 15.10.2022. The ld. CIT(A) on the basis of these facts dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limineon the ground that assessee failed to provide any reason for the belated service of assessment order i.e. on 14.10.2022 for AY 2013-14 and on 15.10.2022 for AY 2014-15. to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam Page 3 of 4 6. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that no show cause notice has ever been issued by the ld. CIT(A)’s office seeking explanation with respect to the belated service of assessment order at the address of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. So far as appeals of penalty for these assessment years are concerned, there is no delay in filing of these appeals.However, the ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter ex-parte as nobody appeared from the side of assessee.
Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to mention anything expressly in his order as to whether his office has issued any notice to the assessee, seeking explanation of the assessee vis-à-vis receipt of order of assessments. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to provide the detailed reasons for belated receipt of the assessment orders of these years.
8.1 So far as the appeals related to the penalty are concerned, it is observed that in respect of these appeals, office of ld. CIT(A) has issued only one notice to the assessee and thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) decided the matter ex-parte in utter disregard of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, these appeals are also restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.