Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a government-owned corporation, faced reopened assessments for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, leading to additions of income and subsequent penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed these penalties ex-parte, as the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices, allegedly due to a defunct email address.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee's non-response was due to a non-functional email. To ensure substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide proper opportunity to the assessee using the updated email ID.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the ex-parte penalty orders by the CIT(A) when the assessee asserted non-receipt of notices due to an outdated email, and whether the assessee deserved another chance to present its case.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. These are a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee, for AY 2012-13 [ A.Y. 2013-14 [ITA No. 73/Gty/2024]. Since, there is a similarity in facts for both the years, these two appeals are being disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 [ ] is being taken as the lead case.
& 73/GTY/2024 Hydro Power Development Corporation of Arunachal Pradesh Limited 1.1 These appeals emanate from orders passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) both dated 19.02.2024 [A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14].
The facts for A.Y. 2012-13 is that the assessee is a company, owned by Government of Arunachal Pradesh and is involved in the production of electricity etc. As per the direction of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Guwahati this case was reopened. On examination of records, it was found that the assessee had earned interest income of Rs. 1,20,46,667/- and another amount of Rs. 20,000/- was earned as tender fees. Thereafter, the Ld. AO had determined the total income of Rs. 1,20,46,670/- under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Act. Admittedly, this determination was done on an allegedly invalid return. Thereafter, the Ld. AO proceeded to levy of penalty of Rs. 39,08,542/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here it needs to be mentioned that for A.Y. 2013-14 the facts are the same even though the impugned amounts are different.
2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have confirmed the penalties on the ground that 9 opportunities given for A.Y. 2012-13 and 10 opportunities given for A.Y. 2013-14 were not responded to by the assessee. Accordingly, it is visible that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order for both of the years.
2.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal for the sake of reference the grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 deserve to be extracted:
“1. For that the Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is bad in law, facts and procedure. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unjustified in upholding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. For that your appellant craves leave of your honor to take additional ground or grounds and/or to modify any grounds(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
& 73/GTY/2024 Hydro Power Development Corporation of Arunachal Pradesh Limited 3. Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative mentioned that all the notices were sent on mdhpdcapl@gmail.com. It was mentioned during hearing that this email was defunct and actual e-mail was cmdhpdcapl@gmailc.om. The Ld. AR mentioned that the latest email was updated on the income tax portal but this information was not specifically mentioned before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR argued for lack of opportunity to present the facts and stated that they would respond to any notices sent on the latest email, in case another chance was given to them.
The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of authorities below and also mentioned that he would have no objection in case the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also gone through the records. It is seen that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued from the office of Ld. CIT(A) because they had earlier given an e-mail address which was no longer functional. We feel that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserves another chance to submit necessary details before the Ld. CIT(A) so that the facts and circumstances surrounding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be determined, one way or another. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand back this matter to his file for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would provide adequate opportunity on the latest e-mail ID of the assessee.
The decision in for A.Y. 2012-13 will apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14.
With these remarks, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 06.03.2025 & 73/GTY/2024 Hydro Power Development Corporation of Arunachal Pradesh Limited