KUTHUPARAMBA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KANNUR vs. ITO, WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

Against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), NFAC. However, the assessee was not served any notice of hearing nor a copy of the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC. Further, no alert or SMS notification was received regarding the disposal of the appeal. The assessee only became aware of the disposal of the appeal when he received a communication from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, asking for a reply to a penalty notice issued under Section 270A of the Act. The assessee came to know that the CIT(A), NFAC had dismissed the appeal ex parte, i.e., without giving an opportunity of hearing.

As a result, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT after a delay of 249 days, along with a petition for condonation of delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to lack of communication from the NFAC and absence of any opportunity of hearing. At the time of hearing, it is submitted that since the appeal was disposed of ex parte, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A), NFAC, with directions to dispose of the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

We, after considering the rival submissions and material on record, find it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, observing that the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the entire issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) with directions to re- examine the matter after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.