Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against separate orders passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC concerning assessment orders under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee's counsel argued that the orders were ex-parte and violated the principle of natural justice, as quantum appeals for the same assessment years were pending before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years were pending. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the penalty appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to contest the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty appeals under Section 271(1)(b) should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering that the quantum appeals for the same assessment years are pending.
Sections Cited
271(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”
Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINIBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI
ORDER PerDr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member:
The present two appeal appeals have been filed by the same Assessee, against the Assessee, against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)/NFAC”] both orders dated both orders dated 05.05.2025 arising in the matter of 05.05.2025 arising in the matter of separate assessment orders passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Years(AY) 2013 2013-14& 2014- 15.
& 386/Rjt/2025 M/s. Kirti Polumers
Since, both these appeals are interconnected, and pertain to same assessee; Since, both these appeals are interconnected, and pertain to same assessee; Since, both these appeals are interconnected, and pertain to same assessee; therefore both these appeals has been therefore both these appeals has been clubbed and heard together and clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for convenience and brevity is being passed for convenience and brevity.
At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that quantum appeal of the assessee for the same Assessment Year 2013 quantum appeal of the assessee for the same Assessment Year 2013-14 and AY- quantum appeal of the assessee for the same Assessment Year 2013 2014-15, are pending before the Ld. CIT(A). pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, these penalty appeal penalty appeals u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act are also remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh also remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh also remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per outcome of the quantum proceedings. adjudication as per outcome of the quantum proceedings. The ld. Counsel for the The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest t in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest t in the interest of justice, another opportunity to contest the appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee. appeal before the Ld. first appellate authority may be granted to the assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand he ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand he ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. materials brought on record. I note that the quantum appeal fo note that the quantum appeal for the assessee under consideration for both the assessment years, namely AY 2013 the assessee under consideration for both the assessment years, namely AY 2013- the assessee under consideration for both the assessment years, namely AY 2013 14 & 2014-15, which are pending before the Ld. CIT(A). pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, herefore, I am of the view that these penalty appeal penalty appeals u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act should also remitted back . 271(1)(b) of the Act should also remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the deem it fit and proper to set aside the & 386/Rjt/2025 M/s. Kirti Polumers order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. adjudicate the issue afresh on merits.
In the result, both these appeal appeals of the assessee (ITA No. 379 & 386/Rjt/2025 for (ITA No. 379 & 386/Rjt/2025 for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15), are are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2025.