Case Law Details
Lahar Joshi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has condoned a 552-day delay in filing an appeal by Lahar Joshi against a penalty order under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed it solely on the grounds of delay without considering its merits. Observing that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present reasons for the delay, the ITAT remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The case stemmed from an assessment for AY 2018-19, where the Assessing Officer (AO) added ₹10.35 lakh to the assessee’s income for non-disclosure of remuneration received from M/s. Pink Elephant Disruption LLP. Subsequently, a penalty of ₹5.35 lakh (200% of the tax on the alleged underreported income) was imposed under Section 270A, treating the omission as misreporting of income. The assessee argued that the omission was unintentional and that he had already paid the tax demand within 30 days of the assessment order. However, the CIT(A) rejected his appeal solely on the grounds of delayed filing, without reviewing the merits of the case.
During the ITAT hearing, the assessee contended that he was unaware of the penalty order and only discovered it when he was expecting a tax refund. Upon realization, he promptly filed an appeal. The ITAT found this explanation reasonable, noting that CIT(A) had not clarified whether notice of hearings was duly served to the assessee. Further, the principles of natural justice require a fair hearing, which was not granted in this case. The ITAT, therefore, condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to reassess the case on its merits.
This decision aligns with judicial precedents emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. Courts have consistently held that a fair hearing should be prioritized over technical rejections. The ruling ensures that the assessee will now receive an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A), who must consider all evidences and arguments before adjudication.
In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad’s order underscores the importance of fair hearings in tax appeals. It highlights that taxpayers should not be penalized solely due to procedural lapses, particularly in faceless assessment systems where communication gaps may occur. The case now returns to CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring that the assessee’s appeal is heard on its actual merits rather than being dismissed on procedural grounds.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 25.05.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. The assessee is in appeal against the Penalty order demanding penalty of Rs. 535844, passed by the ld. AO on 15/03/2022 on account of not showing Partners’ Remuneration in the Income Tax return. The assessee had paid the tax demand arising from the Assessment order in 30 days from the date of Assessment order passed on 18/03/2021. The CIT(A) had rejected the appeal on statistical grounds that the appeal was filed later then the limitation period even though there was a genuine delay and delay condonation request was done. Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). Thus, appeal was not fought on merits at CIT(A). This is the only ground of appeal.”
3. The assessee filed return of income on 26.12.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,96,320/- for the A.Y. 2018-19. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny regarding the issue of remuneration paid by firm. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not offered remuneration amounting to Rs. 10,35,600/- for taxation. The assessee filed the submissions and documents and after deducting into account the sum the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,35,600/- on account of non-disclosure of remuneration received from M/s. Pink Elephant Disruption LLP. The Assessing Officer subsequently imposed the penalty vide order dated 15.03.2022 under Section 270A of Rs. 5,35,844/- being 200% of the taxed on the under reported income is in consequence of misreporting of income.
4. Being aggrieved by penalty order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit and has not given any opportunity to the assessee to establish his case and the reasons for delay. Thus, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the delay may be condoned and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit.
6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that there is no cogent reason given by the assessee in respect of the delay before the CIT(A) which is delay of 552 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. In respect of condonation of delay at this juncture the assessee submitted that the assessee has not been given sufficient opportunity to establish that the reason for delay was genuine and the same should have been taken into account by the CIT(A) as reflected in Form 35 as the assessee was not aware about the penalty order and when the assessee was waiting for refund the assessee came to know about the penalty order and immediately filed the appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, the delay in filing appeal appears to be genuine and requires to be condoned. Hence, the delay is condoned. Besides this the CIT(A) has also not stated whether the notices of hearing were served to the assessee in the order passed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues on merit after taking cognizance of the evidences filed by the assessee. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 01/01/2025
Author Bio
