HINDUSTHAN ORE AND MINING PRIVATE LIMITED,BARBIL vs. ITO, ROURKELA, AYAKAR BHAWAN, UDIT NAGAR ROURKELA

Vide adjournment petition dated July 01, 2025, ld AR had sought adjournment, which is rejected and the appeal is disposed on merits.

The appeal is time barred by 208 days. The assessee has filed condonation petition dated 25.3.2025 supported with affidavit stating the reasons that the ld CIT(A) NFAC has confirmed the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing the matter on merits. There was no determination of tax sought to be evaded in the assessment order since there was no computation sheet and notice u/s.156 of the I.T.Act, therefore, the assessment is void ab initio. It is submitted that the assessee is not in any way trying to gain any advantage of this condonation of delay and the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional. It was prayed that the delay of 232 days in filing the appeal be condoned.

On the other hand, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause for inordinate delay in filing the appeal, therefore, delay should not be condoned.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the condonation petition, we are of the view that the assessee was under impression that when there is no tax liability on completion of the assessment, he was silent and only after imposition of penalty, he could understand the complication of the income tax proceedings. Thereafter, he filed the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal was actually not intentional. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He 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.

On the other hand, ld Sr DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that as there was no response to the notices to substantiate the ld CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. Before us, ld AR undertakes that the assessee will cooperate the proceedings, if the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT(A). 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 his file 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(A), failing which the ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.