CHOUDHARY NARSIRAM,GANDHIDHAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GANDHIDHAM, GANDHIDHAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 946/RJT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 August 2025AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both appeals, finding that the assessee had explained sufficient cause for the delay of 18 days in ITA No. 946/RJT/2024 and 22 days in ITA No. 943/RJT/2024. On merits, the Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the grounds raised by the assessee as per the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering the assessee's request to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, especially to allow the filing of additional evidences, and noting the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted liberty to adduce relevant evidence, and the Assessing Officer was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order. Consequently, the quantum appeal (ITA No. 946/RJT/2024) was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 943/RJT/2024), the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B would not survive as the quantum proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer was given liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if warranted. Thus, the penalty appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Choudhary Narsiram, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 946 & 943/RJT/2024) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, for Assessment Year 2017-18. These appeals were against separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under Section 143(3) and a penalty order under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 18 days and 22 days, respectively. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a lack of awareness of the online appeal process and sought condonation. The appeals were clubbed and heard together, with ITA No. 946/RJT/2024 treated as the lead case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of law). The assessee argued that the delay was unintentional, caused by a lack of awareness of the online appeal process, and requested condonation to present their case. The revenue did not object to the condonation. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte and upholding the addition of Rs. 30,25,758/- being estimated business income @ 10% of total import value of Rs. 3,02,57,585/-? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning Section 143(3) and Section 250(6) of the Act). The assessee contended that the ex-parte order was passed because they were unaware of the online procedure and could not appear. They sought an opportunity to submit additional evidence and requested the matter be remitted back to the Assessing Officer. The revenue did not object to remitting the matter back to the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

Hearing: 13/08/2025Pronounced: 29/08/2025

आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the assessee, pertaining to same Assessment Year, (AY) 2017-18, are directed against the separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals),[in short “the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC”] all dated 27.09.2024, which in turn arise out of separate assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty order under section 271B, of the Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

1.

ITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18 Choudhary Narsiram the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act, dated 25.01.2022. As certain facts in these appeals are common, and these appeals relate to same assessee, thus, both these appeals were clubbed and heard together. Appeal in quantum assessment in is treated as “lead” case.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing appeal is ex-parte.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding an addition of Rs.30,25,758/- being estimated business income @ 10% of total import value of Rs.3,02,57,585/-.”

4. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the appeals filed by the assessee before the Tribunal are barred by limitation 18 days and 22 days respectively. The A.Y.2017-18, is barred by limitation of 18 days whereas assessee’s appeal in is barred by limitation of 22 days. The assessee moved separate petitions for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee explained that the assessee was not aware about passing online appeal by Ld. CIT(A) and came to know on receipt of SMS from Department for payment of demand, and then the appellant has verified the portal and accordingly gain knowledge of passing of appeal order. Therefore the delay of 18 days has occurred. The same reasons are for the delay for 22 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to represent his case ITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18 Choudhary Narsiram before Assessing Officer, therefore after set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A), the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

5.

We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. We have gone through the reasons explained by assessee in the respective condonation petition of delay and having regard to the reasons given in the respective petitions for condonation of delay, we are of the considered view that assessee has explained sufficient cause and therefore delay needs to be condoned. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the delay of 18 days in deserve to be condoned and, accordingly, we condone the delay in both appeals and admit both the appeals of the assessee to adjudicate, on merit.

6.

On merit, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee was not aware about the online procedure, therefore he could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex parte order. However, during appellate proceedings, assessee sought adjournment for one month to file the details and documents but on account of mistake committed by the Advocate of the assessee, the assessee could not submit the required details and documents before Ld.CIT(A) and as a result, the ex parte order was passed by Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that since the assessee wants to submit some more additional evidences to prove his case/claim, therefore one more opportunity may be allowed and matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18 Choudhary Narsiram

7.

Learned Sr-DR of the Revenue stated that he did not have any objection, if the matter is remitted back to the file of lower authorities.

8.

We have heard both the parties and gone through materials available on record. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue in respect of the ground raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and requested the Bench that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as the assessee wants to file additional evidences and ld. Counsel for the assessee, undertook the responsibility that all the details would be filed before Assessing Officer, if another opportunity is granted to the appellant. The Ld. Sr-DR did not raise any objection, if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer. In view of the above facts, we deem it proper to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It is needless to say that assessee will be at liberty to adduce any evidences, as deemed relevant before the Assessing Officer at the time of de novo assessment proceedings, in consequence to this order and the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to make relevant submissions, and then pass a speaking order, which is fair and judicious. Accordingly, appeal of assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA. 946 & 943/RJT/2024/AY.2017-18 Choudhary Narsiram

10.

We note that we have restored the grounds of appeal raised in quantum assessment/ quantum appeal to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, the penalty imposed u/s 271B will not survive, when the matter in quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of Assessing Officer, the penalty does not have leg to stand. However, the Assessing Officer is given liberty to initiate fresh penalty, in accordance with law. In the result, penalty appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s).

Order is pronounced on 29/08/2025 in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) �या�यकसद�य/Judicial Member लेखासद�य/ Accountant Member राजकोट/Rajkot �दनांक/ Date: 29/08/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S True Copy आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��यथ�/ The Respondent आयकरआयु�त/ CIT आयकरआयु�त(अपील)/ The CIT(A) �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील�यआ�धकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT गाड� फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे,

सहायकपंजीकार आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण, राजकोट

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →