Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2013-14 and 2008-09, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance and a delay in filing, which was attributed to an oversight by the authorized representative's accountant.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters for fresh adjudication on merits, recognizing the assessee's statutory right to appeal. This was made conditional upon the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal into the Prime Minister's Relief Fund within sixty days.
Key Issues
Whether ex-parte orders dismissing appeals against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) due to delay and non-appearance should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that both these appeals have been passed ex-parte for the assessee and, therefore, same should be set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue in dispute raised by the assessee in the grounds, particularly Ground No. 2 of the appeals. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the appeals as the reasons stated by the assessee for condoning the delay were not satisfactory. We further note that the assessee did not appear before the AO also and even not responded to the notices issued for the penalty for non-attendance before the AO. The assessee has also not responded before the Ld.CIT(A). Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) was on account of order of the AO placed in a separate drawer by the accountant of the authorized representative of the assessee, which came to knowledge of the authorized representative after expiry of the date of filing of appeal. Thus, it evident the delay is attributed to the negligence on the part of the authorised representative, however, we are of the view that right to appeal being a statutory right of the assessee, which should not be denied due to any negligence on the part of the authorized representative of the assessee and let the matter be decided on merit. In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the files of the Ld.CIT(A), subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each in both the appeals, which shall be deposited into the Prime Minister‟s Relief Fund, within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Ground No.2 in both the appeals is accordingly allowed.
Since we have already restored the appeals of the assessee to the files of the Ld.CIT(A), remaining grounds rendered are merely academic and, therefore, we are not required to be adjudicated at this stage.
In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.