WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte penalty order passed by the NFAC. There was a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which was condoned. The assessee had also faced a delay of 169 days in filing an appeal before the CIT(A), which was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case, violating principles of natural justice. The reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) were considered bonafide.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the ex-parte penalty order without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to present their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by bonafide reasons.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 147, 144, 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA
(Through Physical/Virtual Hearing)
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.39/Agr/2025 [Assessment Year: 2015-16]
Wasim Khan, Income Tax Officer, Physical Choki PE Pass Assessment Unit, Physical Road, Shivpuri, Vs Income Tax Department, National Madhya Pradesh-473551 Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi PAN-CFUPK4124A Appellant Respondent
Appellant by Shri Akhil Goyal, CA Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 02.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.04.2025 ORDER, PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order
dated 14.11.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. CIT(A),
Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2015-16 arising out of penalty order u/s
271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated
25.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi.
There is a delay of ten days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal,
which is nominal and the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted for
hearing.
Brief facts of the case: In this case, the Assessing Officer has levied
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of
2 ITA No.39/Agr/2025
cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.1,21,92,400/- and credits to
the tune of Rs.1,91,908/- in the said bank account. The penalty order was
passed in absence of any reply received by the assessee. Earlier, the
assessee was also completed ex-parte on 11.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144
r.w.s. 144B of the Act.
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the
Ld. CIT(A). There was a delay of 169 days in filing of the appeal before the
Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned by the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was not
admitted.
Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
The ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the
penalty order ex-parte without affording the assessee an adequate
opportunity to present his case. In this regard, he referred to the ground
no.1 of the appeal, which is reproduced as under:-
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and on facts in confirming the ex-parte penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) without affording the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Also during the appeal proceedings only one Notice of 7 days' time limit was served on 06-11-2024 on Mail id of the assessee and no physical copy of the Notice was served for hearing of the appeal and before assessee got aware of the notice on Mail, an Order u/s 250 was passed by The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on 14-11-2024, within 7 days of serving of first Notice u/s 250. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law in passing the order u/s 250 without providing the appellant an adequate opportunity to present its case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.” 7. The ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on
record. In view of the fact stated in ground no.1 as above, we are of the
3 ITA No.39/Agr/2025
considered view that the ld. CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to
the assessee before dismissing the appeal. The assessee explained the
reasons of delay of 169 days by submitting before the ld. CIT(A) is
reproduced as under:-
““That the present appeal involves a delay of filing the appeal. The reasons for late filing the appeal is that due to the negligence of his regular Counsel /Consultant viz. Shri Jugal Kishore Shrivastave Advocate the assessere had remained unaware about the fate of the assessment order/ penalty order which had been passed by the Assessing authority. That the reasons for delay is that previous tax consultant did not inform to the assessee about the assessment order being the assessee is fully depend on taxation matter on its counsel/ consultant That the order was by the NFAC Delhi and was uploaded on E-Mail address of Consultant Jugal Kishore Shrivastave Advocate The delay in filing of appeal had occasioned due to failure on the part of counsel office. The delay in filing the present appeal had occasioned for bonafide reasons. Sir the said delay was not attributable to any lackadaisical conduct on his part. Sir that is the precise and only the reasons that the appeal not presented in time, otherwise ther was neither any malafide intention not deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee in making delay in filing the appeal and requested that there is a sufficient cause explained by the assessee which shuld be taken in to account and the delay in filing the appeal should be excused Thus there is a reasonable cause prevented the assessee for filing the appeal during the statutory time limit. I therefore request your honor condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 9. Considering the above submission, we are of the considered view that
there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee
before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, condone the delay of the appeal filed
before the Ld. CIT(A) and set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the
matter to his file to pass an order afresh after giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also
directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4 ITA No.39/Agr/2025
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 02.04.2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,
