Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals, ITA Nos. 48 & 49/PAT/2025, against the orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-2017. Both appeals were filed belatedly. The assessee contended that the delay occurred because the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without proper notice.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals. It was noted that the assessee had not appeared before the lower authorities and sought restoration of the appeals. The Tribunal, in consonance with the principle of natural justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals should be condoned and whether the matters should be remitted to CIT(A) for a fresh hearing due to lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 271(1)(c), 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
O R D E R
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice President :
These two appeals are directed at the instance of assessee against separate the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna, both dated 28.11.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2016-2017.
At the outset, we find that appeal of the assesse in 374 days and appeal of the assesse in is filed belatedly by 345 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed condonation of applications in both the files and contended that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without issuing proper notice to the assessee, therefore, the delay was occurred due to lack of knowledge about the passing of the order by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, ld. Counsel pleaded that the respective delay in each of the appeals may be condoned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 2 ITANos.48&49/Pat/2025 the materials available on record, we are of the view that it is a fit case to condone the delay in filing both the appeals by the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the respective delays and both the appeals of the assesse are admitted for hearing.
At the time of hearing neither the assessee nor the ld. AR appeared before the Bench to attend this appeal nor any adjournment application was moved by the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is heard and disposed off with the assistance of ld. DR, who pointed out that the assessee had not appeared before both the lower authorities and stated that this appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT (A).
4. In , the assesse has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on legal as well as on the sustenance of addition made by the AO treating the agricultural income of the assesse as income from other sources based on the alleged undisclosed sources. In the assesse has challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the grounds raised
by the assessee in its quantum appeal filed in , which read as under :-
1. The impugned order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act. 1961 dated 11.11.2019 as well as the notice u/s 147 rws 144 and action or proceedings u/s 147/144 are illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or competent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing ex-party order without providing adequate and 3 ITANos.48&49/Pat/2025 reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete.
2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing ex-party order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the Id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete. 3.Rs.6,23,000/-: The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.6,23,000/- made by the Id. AO on account by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources as alleged undisclosed sources, also erred in not invoking any provisions of law while making the addition. The Ld. AO and CIT(A) both have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense available on record. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also being contrary to the real facts of the case and not according to the provision of law, hence the same may kindly be deleted in full.
The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B,C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.
5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.
To avoid repetition, we have not reproduced the grounds raised
by the assesse in its penalty appeal filed in ITA No.49/Pat/2025. A bare perusal of the grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals, we find that the assesse has stated that the ld. CIT(A) has not granted sufficient opportunity being heard to the assesse before passing the respective orders.
6. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record before us with the assistance of the ld. DR, we observed that in this case the assessment was framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act when the assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by