Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an assessment order was dismissed ex parte by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) without providing a notice of hearing. The assessee became aware of this upon receiving a penalty notice under Section 270A and subsequently filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 249 days, citing lack of communication from the CIT(A).
Held
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay without examining the merits. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing them to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing an appeal ex parte without hearing, and whether the matter should be remanded to ensure natural justice.
Sections Cited
144, 140(4B), 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA No. 311/Coch/2025 (Assessment Years: 2018–19) Kuthuparamba Service Co-operative ..….……….Appellant Bank, Kuthuparamba , Kannur District - 670643 [PAN:AABAK3157C] vs. ITO Ward 1 & TPS, Kanniur . ….. …..Respondent Appellant by: Shri. Arun Raj, Adv Respondent by Smt . Leena Lal, Snr,AR Date of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 140(4B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961dated 18.06.2024 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2018–19. 2. 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
2 ITA No. 311/Coch/2025 Kuthuparamba Service Co-operative Bank
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. 3. 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.
3 ITA No. 311/Coch/2025 Kuthuparamba Service Co-operative Bank
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 13.06.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Cochin, Dated: 13.06.2025
Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin