Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessee appealed against the quantum additions and penalty levied for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The CIT(A) dismissed both appeals without considering the Assessee's submissions and affording adequate opportunity of hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing proper opportunity for hearing and without considering the submissions made by the Assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the Assessee's appeals without considering submissions and affording proper opportunity of hearing.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 09.01.2026 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These are two appeals preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.
pertains to the quantum proceedings. The Assessee has challenged the order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2014- 2015.
&4812/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Assessee has challenged the order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 31/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 was dismissed.
4. We would first take up pertaining to the quantum proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. When this appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for Assessee pressed into service Ground No.7 raised in the appeal which reads as under: “7. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and also without considering assessee’s submissions.”
The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee took us through the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(A), and submitted that the Assessee had filed submissions along with supporting documents before the Learned CIT(A). However, the appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed without considering the same. In this regard reliance was placed by the Learned Authorized Representative on online submissions filed during the appellate proceedings before the Learned CIT(A) on 02/02/2024 vide Acknowledgment No.929214211020224.
Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by Learned CIT(A).
On perusal of the material on record, we find that the averments made by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee are factually correct. The Learned CIT(A) had disposed off the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order without considering the submissions and supporting documents filed by the Assessee on 02/02/2024 vide Acknowledgment No.929214211020224. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) does &4812/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015 not contain any reference to the aforesaid submissions. Therefore, accepting the contention of the Assessee, we set aside the impugned order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate afresh the appeal filed by the Assessee along with applications (if any) as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, Ground No.7 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having rendered infructuous at this stage.
In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for Assessee pressed into service Ground No.3 raised in the appeal which reads as under: “3. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and also without considering assessee’s submissions.”
We have heard both the sides on Ground No.3.
On perusal of record we find that the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 without taking into consideration the submissions filed by the Assessee on 02/09/2022 vide Acknowledgment No.465938911020922. We also note that the Learned CIT(A) has rejected application seeking condonation of delay without considering the explanation offered by the Assessee in Memorandum of Appeal in Form 35 filed by the Assessee. The explanation provided has been rejected by the Learned CIT(A) as ‘not &4812/Mum/2025 Assessment Year 2014-2015 satisfactory’ without making any reference to the explanation offered and/or providing any further opportunity to the Assessee to explain the reasons for delay.
Further, while disposing off hereinabove we have set aside the Order passed by the Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.
In in view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned Order, dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Learned CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the applications seeking condonation of delay and the appeal afresh as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage.
In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, both the appeals preferred by the Assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.