Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Sri Baidyanarth Memorial Trust, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, which was delayed by 253 days due to the Chief Functionary's illness and a communication lapse by office staff. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) based on partial documents, and the CIT(A) subsequently passed an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be genuine. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to produce all necessary documents and evidences. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on the assessee, payable to the ITAT Bar Association, for failing to comply with notices, with non-payment leading to confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate order by lower authorities without providing reasonable opportunity.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL
This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 19.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), 19.1.2024 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubanbeswar-3/10134/2018 3/10134/2018-19 for the assessment year 2016 2016-17.
Shri Bibekananda Mohanty Bibekananda Mohanty, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.
P a g e 1 | 4
The appeal is time barred by 253 days. The assessee has filed necessary condonation petition supported by affidavit, stating the reasons that although the appeal was supposed to be filed on 19.3.2024, however as the Chief Functionary of the Trust was suffering from acute fever and body aches and was advised to take rest by the physicians. During that the office support staff viewed the mail regarding the order of ld CIT(A) but could not bring to the notice of the Chief Functionary. Therefore, there was delay of 253 in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons stated in the petition have not been found to be false and, therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
It was stated by ld AR that before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had not been able produce all the documents necessary for completion of assessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act considering the partial documents. It was also further submission that ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish the documents and evidences to substantiate its case. However, it was his prayer to grant one more opportunity to file the evidences before the ld CIT(A).
In reply, ld Sr DR supported the orders of lower authorities.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee has filed some evidences
P a g e 2 | 4 and documents and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, on appeal, ld CIT(A) has passed the order exparte. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the notices were served through ITBA six times and the assessee has failed to comply with the requirement of any of these notices issued or make any submissions in response to communication window enabled. In the absence of any written submissions or documents in support of the claim of the assessee, the appeal was decided on the basis of the materials as are available in the record. Before us, ld AR has undertaken to cooperate in the set aside proceedings, if the matter is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Simultaneously, the assessee is directed to produce all such evidences and documents necessary for substantiating its claims before ld CIT(A). As the assessee has failed to file all the documents as also failed to comply with the notices issued by the ld CIT(A). a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) is to be paid to the ITAT Bar Association within two months and the evidence of receipt be produced before the CIT(A) on the first date of hearing. Non-payment of the cost within the prescribed time will lead to confirmation of the order of the ld CIT(A).
P a g e 3 | 4
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 30/01/2025.