Loading judgment…
Facts
Assessees filed appeals against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) confirming penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16. The A.R. contended that assessees were not computer literate and missed hearing notices, and the underlying quantum assessments were previously remanded to the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessees' failure to respond. To ensure natural justice and as a last opportunity, it restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessees to cooperate.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte penalty orders passed by the CIT(A) should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration when assessees claim lack of computer literacy for missing notices and the quantum assessments for the same cases were already remanded.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VP & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
Kalathingal Fizal Rahman & ors. O R D E R Per: George Gorge K., VP These appeals at the instance of assessees are directed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kochi [CIT(A)], dated 12.11.2024 & 21.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") for assessment years (AYs) 2014-15 & 2015-16. These orders of the CIT(A) arise out of orders of AO imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Since identical issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed off vide this consolidated order.
At the very outset we notice that the CIT(A) has passed exparte orders since the assessees did not respond to the hearing notices issued by the office of the CIT(A). The learned A.R. submitted that the assessees are not computer literates and has failed to take notice of the hearing notices issued from the office of the first appellate authority. Moreover, the learned A.R. submitted, these appeals are arising out of the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and in the quantum assessments, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Hence it was prayed that in the interest of natural justice and equity the matter may be restored to the files of the CIT(A).
Kalathingal Fizal Rahman & ors. 4. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the AO imposing penalty and the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the same.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that these the CIT(A)’s orders are exparte orders since the assessees did not respond to the hearing notices nor filed written submissions. As a last opportunity, in the interest of justice and equity, we restore these appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st April, 2025.