SAHOO DISTRIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK

Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in regard to quantum appeals. For the sake of convenience, grounds raised in are reproduced as under:

For that, the learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error of law as well as of fact, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant, without providing sufficient effective reasonable opportunity of hearing particularly when, the Managing Director of the Appellant Company being busy in marriage of his daughter, sought for two months time, but the learned CIT(Appeal) has committed gross error of law in issuing notices after notices and in dismissing the appeal. The impugned order passed by him, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.

For that, the learned A.O should not have imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 น/ร.272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of the statutory notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 09.08.2021 during the course of reassessment proceeding, particularly when, the Assessee had sufficient, bonafied and genuine reason for non- compliance. The impugned imposition of penalty, being not sustainable in the eye of law, needs to be deleted in the interest of justice.

For that, the Appellant Company craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to urge other grounds of appeal, if any, at the time of hearing in the interest of justice.

It was submitted by ld AR in regard to penalty orders u/s. u/s.271A(1)(d) of the Act that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days, 433 days and 433 days for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20.

Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 270A, for the assessment year 2018-19, the appeal was not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 434 days.

Similarly, in regard to penalty order u/s 271 DA, for the assessment years 2018-19 & 2019-20, the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 430 days in both the years.

In regard to penalty orders, it was submitted by ld AR that the assessee has filed condonation petitions that although the impugned penalty orders were uploaded in the departmental portal, but the hard copies of the same were 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 orders. It was also the submission that P a g e 6 | 10 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 during the said period, the Director of the assessee company was seriously ill and was 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 condoned the request for condoning the delay and confirmed the penalty orders so passed by the Assessing Officer.

In reply, ld CIT DR and 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 appeals 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 orders have been uploaded in the I.T. portal and the assessee was not vigilant to its tax matters.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that the quantum appeals for the P a g e 7 | 10 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 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.

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

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.

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.