GEETHA,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD1(1), SALEM

आदेश / O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F DIN & Order No. ITBA / NFAC / Smt. Geetha, S / 250/2024-25 / 1 2018-19 / Chny / 2024 1064837862(1) dated No.14/2, Periyar Nagar, 13.05.2024 Income Tax Old DIN & Order No. ITBA / NFAC / Officer, Suramangalam, S / 250 / 2024-25 / 2 2018-19 / Chny / 2024 Salem, 1064837917(1) dated Ward-1(1), 13.05.2024 Tamil Nadu- Salem 636005. DIN & Order No. ITBA / NFAC / ITA No. [PAN: S / 250 / 2024-25 / 3 2431 / Chny / 2018-19 BDMPG5919G] 1064838064(1), dated 2024 13.05.2024 , 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 2 -:

2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 68 days each in all the three appeals filed by the assessee. Requesting for condonation of the delay the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was undergoing medical treatment and was advised bed rest for contemporaneous health problems. The assessee has filed a medical certificate in support of its contentions. It has been contended that the same has contributed to the delay in filing of the appeal and which was neither willful nor wanton. The Ld. DR did not offer much opposition to the assessee’s request. Having satisfied that the assessee was having sufficient cause for the delay, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the matter. 3.0 In this case it is noted that the assessee vide 2430/Chny/2024 and 2431/Chny/2024 has challenged order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 16.03.2023, order u/s 270A dated 26.09.2023 and order u/s 271D dated 21.03.2022 respectively. All the three appeals being of the same assessee pertaining to AY-2018-19 and having inter linked issues are adjudicated together hereunder. 4.0 At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the orders of lower authorities are ex-parte orders as the assessee could not make any worthwhile compliance either before the Ld. Assessing officer or before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that , 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: it may be given one last opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities and assured that full cooperation will now be made. The Ld. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee vide for imposition of penalty u/s 271D of the act vide order dated 21.03.2022 may be dismissed and that rest of the matters regarding the quantum addition vide order dated 16.03.2023 and penalty u/s 270A dated 26.09.2023 may be send back to the Ld. AO for readjudication de novo. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that admittedly the assessee had not filed any detailed / evidences either before the Ld. Assessing officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) as a result of which ex-parte orders have been passed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that the assessee deserves one last opportunity to present its case before the Ld. AO. The submission of the Ld. DR of confirming order u/s 271D has been considered and not found acceptable. It is trite law that an opportunity of being heard is to be given by a quasi-judicial authority before passing any order. It is an admitted fact of the case that the assessee had not complied to Ld. AO’s notices during penalty proceedings u/s 271D and therefore deserves an opportunity of being heard now. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld. Assessing Officer and direct the Ld. AO to readjudicate de novo the issue of determination of , 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: taxable income of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the act, issue of levy of any penalty u/s. 270A and of penalty u/s 270D after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by Ld. AO and any deviation shall be viewed adversely.