RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA
Facts
The assessee, Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited, filed its return declaring NIL income for AY 2014-15. The case was reopened under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not fulfilling criteria for deduction under Section 35AD. The Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs. 4,27,53,259/- and initiated penalty proceedings. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to meet the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is to be allowed and the order of CIT(Appeals) is to be set aside and remitted back for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
148, 35AD, 271(1)(c), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15.
ITA No. 653/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015) Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited 2. The appeal is time barred by 189 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the Director of the assessee-Company filed a condonation petition saying that he was not aware of the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). When the assessee came to know about the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 189 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to condone the delay since the assessee has established sufficient cause to condone the delay. Hence the delay is condoned.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in running Nursing Homes and Emergency Services and sale of medicine. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring NIL income claiming loss at Rs.34,64,44,303/-. The return of income was revised by the assessee on 18.12.2014 declaring total income at NIL claiming at Rs.34,64,44,303/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The case was received to complete the re- assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee has not fulfilled the criteria of deduction under sub-section (i) and sub-section (ii) of the Section 35AD of the Act. Accordingly, after getting the approval of competent authority, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer to the assessee via registered e-mail on 31.03.2021 wherein the assessee was requested to furnish its
ITA No. 653/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015) Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited income tax return for AY 2014-215. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its ITR for AY 2014-15 on 26.04.2021. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021 sending the reasons for reopening the assessment and also requiring the assessee to furnish necessary details and justification for claim of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. It was noteworthy that there was no mention regarding furnishing any information or details in respect of deduction claimed under sub-section (i) and (ii) to section 35AD of the Act. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022 with a copy of draft assessment order was sent to the assesese by the ld. Assessing Officer requiring it to furnish reply in respect of addition and penalties proposed in the said assessment order latest by 27.03.2022. Getting no satisfactory reply from the side of assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer assessed the taxable income at Rs.4,27,53,259/- as unexplained and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).
The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 14th March, 2024.
On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.
ITA No. 653/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015) Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited
At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh.
At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.4,27,53,259/- as unexplained. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials
ITA No. 653/PAT/2024 (A.Y. 2014-2015) Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/05/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Awasthi) (Duvvuru RL Reddy) Accountant Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 26th day of May, 2025
Copies to :(1) Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited, 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar (2) NFAC, New Delhi, Pin Code No. 110001 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT - ; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order
Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.
