SAHOO DISTIBUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAJPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CUTTACK, CUTTACK

No.556/CTK/2024, ITA No.558/CTK/2024 557/CTK/2024, ITA No.558/CTK/2024 and ITA No.561/CTK/2024 are appeals filed by the assessee against the and ITA No.561/CTK/2024 are appeals filed by the assessee against and ITA No.561/CTK/2024 are appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of ld separate orders of ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2 dated 30.11.2024 in Appeal dated 30.11.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10481/2019-20 in the matter of pe 20 in the matter of penalty P a g e 1 | 6 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 u/s.271AAC(1), in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10482/2019-20 in the matter of penalty u/s.270A of the Act, in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 2/10483/2019-20 in the matter of penalty u/s.272A and in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10480/2019-20 in the matter of penalty u/s.271DA for the assessment year 2020-2021.

Shri P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, ld CIT DR and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

In regard to for A.Y. 2020-21, It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has passed the order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for want of evidences and explanation. It was also submitted that the assessment order was passed during Covid period, therefore, the order passed by the ld

It was submitted by ld AR in regard to penalty orders u/s. u/s.271AAC(1), 270A, 272A and 271D,that the appeals were not filed before the ld CIT(A) within the due date, therefore, there was delay of 438 days, 438 days, 460 days and 431 days. 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 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

Similarly, in respect of A.Y. 2019-20, ld AR contended the submissions as raised in for A.Y. 20202-2021 and requested for remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. is in relation to penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. Ld AR submitted that there was delay of 438 days in filing of appeal before the ld CIT(A). He reiterated the similar submissions were made in regard to penalties levied for the assessment year 2020-2021 in para 7 above and requested to condone the delay.

In reply, ld CIT DR and Sr DR argued that the assessee had been given multiple opportunities but the assessee failed to comply the same. In regard to penalty orders, ld CIT DR submitted that the reasons given for condoning the delay are not justified. 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 assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-2021 have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the P a g e 4 | 6 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 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.

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. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the learned 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, a cost of Rs.2,000/- is levied per appeal to the ITAT Bar Association within two months and the evidence of receipt be produced P a g e 5 | 6 to 561/CTK/2024 Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2019-20 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.