Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, a State Government organization, filed six appeals before the CIT(APPEAL), NFAC. These appeals were dismissed due to the appellant's failure to furnish evidence or explanations for the assessment orders and penalty orders. The appellant claimed that certain notices were overlooked.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reason for non-response to notices was not initially pleaded in the memorandum of appeals, but was raised later. The Tribunal also observed that the email address for receiving notices was provided and acknowledged, and the responsibility to check emails lay with the concerned person. The appellant candidly admitted negligence.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals dismissed by the CIT(APPEAL) NFAC should be restored for fresh adjudication, considering the appellant's claim of overlooking notices and subsequent admission of negligence.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 434 to 439 /JPR/2024
PER BENCH:
The appellant is a State Government organization –company. In the year 2018, the appellant filed six appeals before ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC. All the appeals came to be dismissed vide impugned orders dated 19.02.2024. While dismissing the appeals, ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC observed that the appellant had failed to furnish document evidence/proper explanation in relating to the Assessment Years 2007-08, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 and also as regards the penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) relating to the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2015-16.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned AR for the appellant has referred to table(s) available in each impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC. Said tables depict date(s) of issuance of various notices by the said office to the assessee.
The only submission put forth by ld. AR for the appellant is that certain notices issued by the said office could not be responded to as the same skipped attention.
In respect of each appeal, written submission have been put forth by ld. AR while specifying therein that such and such notice(s) had skipped the attention.
The only prayer put forth on behalf of the appellant before us is that in the interest of justice, the matters may be restored to Ld. CIT(APPEAL) for decision afresh so as to provide to the appellant only one opportunity of being heard for the purpose of disposal of said appeals. chart depicting date(s) of notices issued by ld. CIT(APPEAL) from time to time, to the assessee to provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant, and submitted that since the appellant failed to respond to several notices so issued, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld, and all six appeals be dismissed.
As noticed above, on behalf of the appellant, it has been admitted that various notices were issued by the office of ld. CIT(APPEAL) NFAC, and served upon the assesssee.
The only explanation put forth for ‘no response’ to many of said notices specified in the written submissions, is that that the same skipped attention.
In this regard, it is significant to note that nowhere in the memorandam of appeals, this fact has been alleged. In other words, in the memorandum of appeals, there is no plea that many of said notices skipped the attention, or that due to said reason, same could not be responded. Admittedly, this fact has been put forth for the first time, in the written submissions presented before us. to from whose notice, said notices got skipped. Specific plea was required to be put forth, even in this regard, in the memorandam of appeals.
Secondly, it was required to be specified and proved that such and such person was responsible to view the portal or e-mails.
However, from the details available in Form No.35 submitted to CIT(A), it becomes obvious that notices relating to the appeals were desired to be sent at the email address: anuhal@Kalanico.com.
When receipt of the notices at the above mentioned email address is admitted, it was for the person concerned having the responsibility to check and deal with emails received on the said address, to notice the same so that steps could be taken for response thereto in the appeals.
Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in other appeals pending before the ld. CIT(APPEAL) NFAC, relating to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, written submissions were put forth on 13th Jan, 2023 and 28.03.2023, and that said appeals have not yet been decided. But, this submission to show alacrity on the part of the assessee in other appeals, does not come to the aid of the appellant. business of mining, processing and trading of mineral and power generation, special attention is required to be paid to the notices issued by the office of ld. CIT(APPEAL), so as to respond the same on or before the given dates, or by participating in the proceedings on the given dates, but due care and attention was not paid to the notices received from the CIT(A) so as to respond thereto or for participation in the appeals.
It may be mentioned here that initially, Ld. AR for the appellant put forth that it was due to ‘mistake’ that notices were not responded to, but, faced with the number of notices issued and not responded to, he, ultimately, and very candidly admitted it to be a case of ‘negligence’.
In view of the candid admission and having regard to the fact that the appellant is a State government undertaking and the after effects of the dismissal of the appeals vide the impugned orders as regards demands of tax and penalties, we deem it to be a fit case to accede to the request of Ld. AR for the appellant for providing of only one opportunity by Ld. CIT(A), to the appellant, of being heard, so that the matters are effectively adjudicated on merits. But, in the given situation, we also find it to be a fit appeal. Costs to be deposited in Prime Ministers’ Relief Fund.
At this stage, it may be mentioned that as per sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act for disposal of the appeal, ld. CIT(APPEAL) is required to state points for determination, adjudicate each ground/ point arising in the matters, for disposing of the appeal. As is available from the impugned orders, Ld. CIT(APPEAL) has not discussed each point for determination, which led to the framing of the assessment and levy of penalties, upheld thereby. Result
In view of the discussion and for the reasons recorded above, all six appeals are disposed of for statistical purposes, and the 6 appeals presented before ld. CIT(APPEAL) are restored to the files of ld. CIT(APPEAL), to their original number, with the direction that same shall be decided afresh, after providing only one opportunity of being heard, to the appellant.
The assessee-appellant shall produce before Learned CIT(APPEAL), receipts in proof of deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- for each appeal, imposed today, and thereupon, Learned CIT(E) to commence proceedings in the appeals, in accordance with law.
7 to 439/JPR/2024 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. vs. DCIT Order pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 26/06/2024 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd., Japur 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT/DCIT, Circle-06, Jaipur 2. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA Nos. 434 to 439/JPR/2024) 5. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत