Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The NFAC orders were passed ex-parte as the assessee claimed not to have received notices. The assessee requested a de novo adjudication from the CIT(A) after being given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appellate orders were passed ex-parte, and the assessee had not provided a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity for adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were justified, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity for adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 147, 144, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI. ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश/O R D E R
PER BENCH: A group of appeals of the same assessee filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") order passed for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 date of all the orders 26.09.2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"), order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 06.02.2022 for AY 2013-14 and date of order 15.03.2022 for AY 2014-15 and
Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited order passed by Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for AY 2016-17, date of order 21.03.2025.
Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, is taken as lead case and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal before us.
The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that all the three appellate orders were passed ex parte. She stated that notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee on several dates. However, the assessee could not comply with the said notices on the ground that the notices were not duly received by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AR requested that the matter be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) submitted that the Ld. AR had failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, strongly relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. On considering the fact, we find that the assessment was complete for AY 2013-14 under section 143(3) of the Act & addition was confirmed
Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited amount of Rs. 9,58,82,483/-. The Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the penalty was duly levied amount to Rs. 1,96,48,818/- i.e. 100% of the tax short to be emanated. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte and without considering the submission of the assessee. We observed that the assessee has substantial outstanding demand and all the appellate orders have been passed ex-parte. In the interest of natural justice, we decided that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to properly present its case before the Ld. CIT(A). However, as the assessee has failed to provide a satisfactorily explanation on its non-compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of view that a cost should be imposed to emphasize the importance of adhering to Income Tax Proceedings. Accordingly, with due consent of the Ld. AR, we imposed cost of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) for both the appeals related to penalty proceeding for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 each and for appeal related to assessment under section 147/144 for AY 2016-17 the cost is imposed Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Accordingly, total cost is imposed to assessee amount to Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for all three years which will be paid to the credit to the Income Tax Department within one months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of aforesaid cost which shall be duly verified by the Ld. CIT(A), all issues are remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We do not express any opinion on merit of the case to ensure that the appellate proceeding remand uninfluenced before the Ld. CIT(A). It is imperative that the assessee is allowed the reasonable opportunity of being heard. Furthermore, the assessee
Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17) M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited is expected to exercise due diligence in the appellate proceedings to facilitated the experience disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing to 8172/Mum/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2026
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA ANIKESH BANERJEE (ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Place: Mumbai Dated:06.03.2026 Divya Ramesh Nandgaonkar Stenographer आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� / CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरणDR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard file. स�ािपत�ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
सहायकपंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण / ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.