NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA, CUTTACK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

ITA 123/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7231 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.122 & 123/ CT K/2 024 (ननधाारण वषा / Asses s m ent Year : 2017-2018) National Law University Orissa, Kathajodi Campus, Sector-13, CDA, Cuttack-753015 Vs ACIT(Exemption) Cir. Bhubaneswar PAN No. :AAJFB 1640 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty & Shri Saswat Acharya, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.03.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1061835952(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The assessee has also filed appeal against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 03.03.2024 confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeals of the assessee on account of delay. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was a delay of 676 days. It was the submission that the order of the AO was dated 30.12.2019 and the appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) on 05.11.2021. The ld. AR drew our attention to para 15 of Form 35 being the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), ITA No.122&123/CTK/2024 2 wherein the reasons for the delay has also been categorically mentioned as follows :- 3. It was the submission that if the period during which the rule in respect of the limitation has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ITA No.122&123/CTK/2024 3 on account of Covid is considered then the actual delay would be only 46 days. It was the submission that the reasons for delay of 46 days is that the staff of the assessee, who was to look after the affairs in respect of taxation matter had been litigating against the assessee and had also not cooperated in the proceedings and this had caused the delay. It was the submission that this was also the reason why the assessee remained un- represented before the AO also. It was the further submission that such employee had been subsequently terminated after protracted litigation. It was the prayer that the issues in this appeal may be restored to the file of AO after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee being the premier educational institute for lawyer should have shown due diligence. However, he was fair enough to submit that just because the employee has caused the problem, the assessee need not be put to hardship and opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent its matter before the AO. 5. We have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the effective delay is only 46 days and the reason or the delay has also been explained by the assessee. The delay has also not been found to be false. Consequently, we are of the view that the delay in filing of both these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) are liable to be condoned and we do so. 6. Under normal circumstances, as the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeals of the assessee on merits, we would restore the appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh order on merits. However, in the present ITA No.122&123/CTK/2024 4 case, it is noticed that the assessee has not been represented even at the assessment stage, no purpose would be served by restoring the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A), especially when voluminous evidence are to be considered. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 7. Should the assessee fail to cooperate in the assessment proceedings, liberty is granted to the AO to draw adverse inference. Thus, ITA No.122/CTK/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. With regard to appeal of the assessee in ITA No.123/CTK/2024, wherein the assessee has agitated the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act, as the issues have been restored in the quantum for readjudication in the assessment stage, the legs in the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act, no more survives and, therefore, the same stands quashed. Liberty is granted to AO to initiate fresh proceedings should the necessity arises. Thus, ITA No.123/CTK/2024 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2024. Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 14/05/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. ITA No.122&123/CTK/2024 5 आदेश की प्रनतलऱपऩ अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant- National Law University Orissa, Kathajodi Campus, Sector-13, CDA, Cuttack-753015 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- ACIT(Exemption) Cir. Bhubaneswar 3. आयकर आय ु क्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy//