CHIEF MANGER, CANRA BANK ( PERSON RESPONSIBLE),JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS ) CIRCLE, JAMMU
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Canara Bank, filed an appeal before the ITAT against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). There was a significant delay of 1870 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, attributed to various reasons including centralization of TDS records and the Covid lockdown.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to being ex-parte. The secondary issue involved condoning the significant delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar (Camp at Jammu) dated 05.03.2018in respect of Assessment Year: 2013- 14challenging therein the order passed ex-parte qua the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice.
2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee filed condonation application for delay of 1870 days in filing the appeal with the support of notarized affidavit duly attested by the public notary. The condonation petition of the appellant-assessee is reproduced as under:
“It is submitted that:
Commissioner Appeal Amritsar has passed ex parte order on 5-03-2018 in respect of appeal filed against Order of ITO TDS Circle Jammu dated 11-11-2013.
The Date of Communication of order is not available on record.
Considering the facts, there is delay of 1870 days in filing appeal before ITAT Amritsar Bench.
Due to Centralization of TDS, all TDS records available at Branches were transferred to Central office which resulted in confusion regarding availability of related information and persons to whom the files were transferred did not have the complete information about the backdrop and history of the case, which related to two different assessment years.
5. Covid lockdown and downsizing of staff also led to delay in taking appropriate action.
The delay is also attributable to the fact that favourable order was passed by CIT A for FY 2013-14 on 31-03-2016 which was also emanating from same AO order dated 11-11-2013.
Chief Manager v.ITO 7. The delay is also attributable to the fact that since appeal was decided by CIT A Amritsar instead of CIT A Jammu, the assessee firmly believed that no further appeal needs to be filed except against adverse order of CIT A Jammu and since CIT A Jammu has passed favourable order, no further appeal is required to be filed.
The assessee got sensitized only when demand was pressed by ITO TDS Circle Jammu through telephonic discussions by abstention of order from ITO TDS Jammu on 07-06-2023 through personal visit.
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, it is requested to condone the delay.”
Considering the Covid period and technical glitches, the delay condoned and appeal admitted on merits.
3. The counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of ld. CIT(A) was passed ex-parte depriving the appellant opportunity of being heard without appreciating the merits of the case. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merits after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee with due service of notices, show cause notice before passing the appellate order. He undertakes to co-operate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has no objection to the request of the assessee.
Chief Manager v.ITO 4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order. Admittedly, the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee. It is evident from the record that the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned the fact of issue of notice but he has not mentioned the fact of service of notices upon the assessee appellant. In view of principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh issue of TDS disputed, after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
