Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies Vs ITO (Exemption) (ITAT Cuttack)
Appeal Number : ITA Nos. 174-177/CTK/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/01/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2009-2010 to 2012-2013

Raghunath Jew School of Management Studies Vs ITO (Exemption) (ITAT Cuttack)

The facts in the present appeals clearly show that the assessments have been done ex-parte on account of the fact that the books of accounts and bills & vouchers were not produced before the AO. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically but the appeals have been filed manually within time. Admittedly, this is a period where the migration from the physical hearing to the faceless hearing took place, for which mistakes must be expected. Under normal circumstances, the issues in the appeals would have to be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to file the appeal electronically. However, by doing so and restoring the issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC would not serve any purpose insofar as the evidences have not been produced before the AO and it would be practically very difficult for the assessee to produce any fresh evidence before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. This being so, in the interest of justice and to reduce the possible round of litigation, the issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) per assessment year under consideration to the Income Tax Department and copy of the challan may be produced before the AO. It is hereby clarified that the cost of Rs.25,000/- per assessment year under consideration is not adjustable against any tax liabilities or dues for any of the assessment years.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CUTTACK

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, all dated 30.09.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1046137372(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046137753(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046138161(1) &  TBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046137557 (1) for the assessment years 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013, respectively.

2. Shri Basudev Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R.Panda, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR with Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It was submitted that the Chairman of the assessee-society had appeared before the AO and his statement had also been recorded but subsequently due to his ill-health, he could not cooperate in the assessment proceedings. It was submitted that the assessment came to be completed on 23.03.2016. The assessee filed an appeal against the assessment orders on 29.04.2016. It was submitted that the appeals were filed manually. It was the submission that physical hearing notice had also been issued on the assessee on 06.02.2019. It was submitted that in the meantime the migration of the appeals from the physical hearing to the faceless hearing was initiated. Consequently, e-filing of the appeals had been directed from 01.03.2016 and the said date was extended to 15.06.2016. It was the submission that as the assessee was unaware that the appeals already manually filed were also to be filed electronically, there was failure on the part of the assessee to do so. It was submitted that, however, it seems that the revenue records itself had been electronically converted and the CIT(A), NFAC had issued notice of hearing on 07.01.2022. It was the submission that on the ground that the appeals of the assessee had not been filed electronically, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the assessee’s appeal. It was the submission that this was only a technical breach. It was the submission that the fact that the assessee has filed appeals in the physical form within time itself showed the intention of the assessee that he disputed the assessment. It was the submission that restoring the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC would also be of no help insofar as the assessments are ex-parte assessments and all details had not been produced before the AO. It was the prayer that the issues in the appeals may be restored to the file of the AO in the interest of justice.

4. In reply, ld. CIT-DR and ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the ld. AO & CIT(A), NFAC and they both jointly submitted that a punitive cost of Rs.25,000/- must be levied for each of the assessment year under consideration insofar as the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings.

5. In reply, ld. Senior Advocate submitted that the cost of Rs.25,000/-per appeal is excessive and the assessee is running an engineering college in a remote place of Balasore District. It was the submission that no cost should be levied on the assessee.

6. We have considered the rival submissions. The facts in the present appeals clearly show that the assessments have been done ex-parte on account of the fact that the books of accounts and bills & vouchers were not produced before the AO. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not filed the appeal electronically but the appeals have been filed manually within time. Admittedly, this is a period where the migration from the physical hearing to the faceless hearing took place, for which mistakes must be expected. Under normal circumstances, the issues in the appeals would have to be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A), NFAC to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to file the appeal electronically. However, by doing so and restoring the issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC would not serve any purpose insofar as the evidences have not been produced before the AO and it would be practically very difficult for the assessee to produce any fresh evidence before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. This being so, in the interest of justice and to reduce the possible round of litigation, the issues on merits in these appeals are restored to the file of the ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. As the assessments have been done ex-parte, the assessee shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand only) per assessment year under consideration to the Income Tax Department and copy of the challan may be produced before the AO. It is hereby clarified that the cost of Rs.25,000/- per assessment year under consideration is not adjustable against any tax liabilities or dues for any of the assessment years.

7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2023.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
April 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930