ASHISH KESHAV UKEY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR, NAGPUR
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal with a delay of 29 days without a condonation application or affidavit. The assessee also failed to appear before the learned CIT(A) despite notices and did not file a condonation application there either, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a condonation application with an affidavit, and the learned CIT(A) was given discretion to decide it on merits. A cost of ₹5,000 per appeal was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance and procedural delays.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance and delay in filing should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.515 and 516/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Ashish Keshav Ukey FF–2, Shahas Apartments ……………. Appellant WHC Road, Bajaj Nagar Square Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAOPU7596 v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–1(5), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Kumar Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Date of Hearing – 04/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
These appeals by the assessee are against the common impugned order dated 26/06/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.
During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 29 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal. While going through the record available before us, we find that the assessee has even not bothered to file any application for condonation of delay supported by duly sworn affidavit. It is more surprising to note that there was even delay in filing first
2 Ashish Keshav Ukey ITA no.515 & 516/Nag./2024 appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not file any application for condonation of delay. Leave aside this, the assessee even chose not to appear before the learned CIT(A) despite several statutory notices issued by the learned CIT(A). The non–compliant attitude of the assessee has to be taken a serious note. Due to lackadaisical approach in the proceedings, the learned CIT(A) passed ex–parte order and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee being time barred. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A), since the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. In view of the above, the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside and remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. The assessee is also directed to file before the learned CIT(A) an application for condonation of delay duly supported by a sworn Affidavit on the basis of which the learned CIT(A) is left on his own discretion to decide the condonation application on merits and then proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit, if so deem fit keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
3 Ashish Keshav Ukey ITA no.515 & 516/Nag./2024 3. Insofar as non–appearance of the assessee before the authorities below are concerned, the primary onus lies on the assessee to co-operate in the proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. In case, the assessee does not do so, the assessee deserves to be penalized and hence we feel that the penalty has to be imposed upon the assessee and the same should be commensurate to the default committed by him. As a result of non- compliance and procedural delays, we deem it fit and appropriate to impose a cost upon the assessee for an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) for each appeal aggregating to ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority and adduce evidence of payment before the learned CIT(A). This cost underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements and timely compliance during assessment and appellate proceedings.
In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025
Sd/- Sd/- K.M. ROY V. DURGA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 25/02/2025
4 Ashish Keshav Ukey ITA no.515 & 516/Nag./2024
Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
