Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against an order confirming a penalty under section 270A of the Act was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to delay. The assessee claimed the delay occurred because the penalty order was not communicated properly, and the company's director was seriously ill. The assessee submitted a condonation petition to the CIT(A), which was rejected.
Held
The Tribunal found the assessee's reasons for the delay in filing the appeal were justifiable, considering the director's illness and the lack of proper communication of the order. The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was levied.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the penalty order should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
270A, 253(5), 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY(KZ) & RAJESH KUMAR
Sahoo Distributers Private Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack Limited Babuganj Bazar, Chhatia, Jajpur, 754023 PAN/GIR No. AALCS 5499 K (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Prateek Kr. Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 30/11/2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10524/2016-17 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18, confirming the penalty levied u/s.270 of the Act on the ground of limitation.
It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed condonation petition stating that although the impugned penalty order was uploaded in P a g e 1 | 5 the departmental portal, but the hard copies of the same was never supplied to the assessee nor the assessee had received the orders in e-mail. Therefore, the assessee had no knowledge about passing of such order. It was also the submission that during the said period, the Director of the assessee company was seriously ill and suffered from some severe neurological problems and was under direct supervision of Doctor for treatment. It was the submission that only after receipt of recovery notice and telephonic call from the department, assessee came to know about the penalty proceedings and downloaded the same and requested its professional to file appeals before the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that it was in this backdrop that there was delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and the ld CIT(A) has not considered the request for condoning the delay and confirmed the penalty order so passed by the Assessing Officer. Ld A.R. submitted that similar issue had been considered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.1.2025 in Asst. Year2019-20, ITA No.02/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2017-18, ITA No.03/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2017-18, ITA No.04/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2018-19, ITA No.05/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2018-19, ITA No.06/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2018-19, ITA No.07/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2018-19, ITA
P a g e 2 | 5 No.08/CTK/2025: Asst. Year -2019-2, wherein, by a detailed order, the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh, 3. In reply, ld Sr DR argued that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities to represent its case but the assessee failed to comply the same. It was the submission that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of condonation of delay taken by the appellant after giving the thoughtful consideration to the same and has rightly rejected the penalty appeal on the grounds of delay because there was no sufficient cause shown by the assessee/appellant which needed indulgence by the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. The order haa been uploaded in the I.T. portal and the assessee was not vigilant to its tax matters.
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.1.2025, the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of AO ob observing as under:
“14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the quantum appeals for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessment orders have been passed u/s.147/144 of the Act due to non-compliance of the notices issued by the AO. Now, the ld AR has prayed that if one more opportunity is granted, the assessee will produce all the relevant documents and evidences in support of its claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues in both the appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
P a g e 3 | 5
Furthermore, the penalty orders were confirmed by the ld CIT(A) without condoning the delay. The assessee had furnished the plausible cause that although the penalty orders were uploaded by the department in the Portal but same were not sent through postal or email and as the Director was seriously ill due to neurological problems and under medical treatment, the appeals could not be filed within the stipulated period. We find the reasons given by the assessee for filing appeals delay before the ld CIT(A) are justifiable and the assessee would not gain anything by filing the appeals late. There is no mala fide imputable to the assessee. At the most for the inaction or a little negligence, the assessee can be burdened with the cost but its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. It is also a settled position by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, that whenever substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we take a judicious view and condone delay in filing of appeals before the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.
As the assessee had not cooperated during the assessment proceedings as well as during the first appellate proceedings, a cost of Rs.2,000/- is levied per appeal to be paid to the ITAT Bar Association within two months and the evidence of receipt be produced before the AO. Non-payment of the cost would result the appeals of the assessee being treated as dismissed and the orders of the AO and ld CIT(A) upheld. The liberty is granted to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents, evidences and other details as are required to prove its case before the Assessing Officer.” 5. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), we restore the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act to the file of the AO for consideration. The liberty is also granted to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents as are required to prove its case before the AO. The AO is directed to redecide the issue afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
P a g e 4 | 5
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/07/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Cuttack: Dated 01/07/2025 B.K.Parida, Sr. PS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Sahoo Distributers Private Limited Babuganj Bazar, Chhatia, Jajpur, 754023
The Respondent : ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-, Bhubaneswar-2 4. Pr.CIT-Bhubaneswar-2 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Itat, Cuttack
P a g e 5 | 5