Case Law Details
Shreenath Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In the case of Shreenath Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad addressed an appeal related to the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant, Shreenath Corporation, challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Delhi, which dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable due to a delay of one year and eight months in filing. The CIT(A) had found no sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had failed to provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) only considered the written submissions from the appellant without granting a hearing. Additionally, the ITAT noted that the appeal regarding the quantum proceedings was still pending before the CIT(A), and the penalty appeal had been decided prematurely.
Considering these points, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the penalty appeal in conjunction with the quantum appeal. It emphasized that the penalty appeal should only be decided after the quantum proceedings are concluded, and proper hearing should be provided for the condonation of the delay.
The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following the directions specified. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was to be decided in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 6.8.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) ,dismissing assessee’s appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) levying penalty under section 271 ( 1)(c) of the Act ,as non-maintainable.
3. The Ld.CIT(A), we find has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before it. The delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to be to the tune of one year and eight months. The Ld.CIT(A) has found no sufficient cause adduced by the assessee for the delay, and accordingly has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non maintainable being filed beyond the period prescribed by law.
4. We have noted from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not been given any opportunity of hearing by the Ld.CIT(A) while not condoning the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) has considered merely the submissions filed by the assessee ,along with the appeal, giving reasons for the delay and passed order refusing to condone the delay. Besides, the ld. counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the fact that the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceedings is still pending before the Ld.CIT(A) and the penalty appeal has been decided in advance.
5. Noting the above, we are of the view that the appeal of the assessee needs to be considered afresh by the ld.CIT(A) more particularly, along with the appeal in quantum proceedings before it; that it would be appropriate to decide the penalty appeal only after the quantum proceeding is decided and to consider condonation of delay only after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
We accordingly restore the issue back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to be decided in accordance with law, as per our above directions.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 8th November, 2024 at Ahmedabad.
Author Bio
