K.B. TECHNIC PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 130/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 July 2025AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons to be genuine and bonafide, and noting the Revenue's lack of objection. The Tribunal held that the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and unsustainable. It was found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and record reasons for the conclusion. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without looking into the merits of the case, failing to consider the assessee's reply uploaded on the portal and not making any analysis of the facts. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside in the interest of justice and fair play. The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for necessary adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish replies and relevant details. The assessee was also cautioned against seeking adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, KB Technic Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 27.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was filed with a delay of 474 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating that they came to know about the CIT(A)'s order on 19.02.2025 when it was uploaded on the e-portal under the 'For your action' tab, whereas it was initially uploaded under 'For Your Information' without any notification to their registered email or mobile. The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and passed without providing sufficient opportunity, violating principles of natural justice. The Revenue did not object to the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding their knowledge of the CIT(A)'s order and the Revenue's lack of objection. 2. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) was ex-parte and in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and not recording reasons for its conclusion. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned as the assessee only became aware of the CIT(A)'s order on 19.02.2025 due to an improper upload on the e-portal and lack of communication. - The CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and liable to be set aside as it was passed without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee, thus violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay and did not object to the prayer made by the assessee regarding the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘PATNA’ BENCH, PATNA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Rastogi, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 29.07.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2023 for the AY 2011-12.

2.

It appears from the report of the registry that the appeal has been filed after a delay of 474 days for which the assessee has filed condonation petition., which are as follows-

“To. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. Reference: KB Technic Private Ltd., 3-A. Singeshwar Palace, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 800 001. Bihar (PAN: AAACK9200F) for Α.Υ.2011-12. Subject: Petition for condonation of delay in filing appeal. Reference: Order of CIT(A), NFAC dated 27/09/2023.

4.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the orders of ld. CIT (A) as well as ld. AO are ex-parte order and is liable to set aside. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act was without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and as such the order is bereft of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.

6.

We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that instant impugned order

7.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →