VISHWARAJ STEEL AND CROCKERY LLP,MOTIHARI vs. ITO, WARD-1(4),MOTIHARI, MOTIHARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 July 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be genuine and sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business had closed, leading to a lack of proper office facilities and awareness of the appellate order until Section 271AAC proceedings were initiated. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal observed that there was a complete lack of compliance by the assessee before both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vishwaraj Steel and Crockery LLP, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Ld. CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 273 days. The assessee attributed this delay to the closure of its business in the Financial Year 2020-21, lack of a proper office, termination of employees, and consequently, not being aware of the appellate order until proceedings under Section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act were initiated. The assessee had also not complied with the requirements before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Ld. CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders. The assessment itself was framed under Section 144 of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine and sufficient reasons, including business closure, lack of a proper office, and non-awareness of the appellate order until proceedings under Section 271AAC were initiated. An affidavit was filed to support these claims. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the delay. However, the revenue was represented by a Departmental Representative (DR). 2. Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer, given the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, having not complied earlier, sought an opportunity to present its case. The ITAT noted the lack of compliance before the AO and CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC,Section 144

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 Sanjeev Kr. Anwar AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Hearing: 07.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.05.2024for the AY 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal, for which the assessee has moved a condonation petition. We observe from the said petition that the assessee’s business was closed in F.Y. 2020-21 and thereafter, it was not having any proper/regular office to look after its affairs as almost all the employees were terminated resulting into non accessing of the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT (A). We further note that the assessee came to know about the said order after proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act were

3.

After hearing the rival contentions and after perusing the facts available on record before us, we are of the view that the delay is for genuine and sufficient reasons and accordingly condoned.

4.

At the outset, we observe that there was no compliance at all either before the ld. AO or before the ld. CIT (A) which has resulted into passing the ex-parte orders by both the authorities below. We note that the assessment has been framed u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 11.12.2019. Similarly, before the first appellate authority, the assessee has not furnished any documents, resulting into ex-parte dismissal of the appeal in limine by the ld. CIT (A). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee needs to be given one more opportunity of presenting its case before the ld. AO. Consequently, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 271AAC

All 982 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →