JINS DOMINIC,KOTTAYAM V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTTAYAM

ITA 68/COCH/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Jins Dominic against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were initially dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds of being time-barred, as they were not filed within 30 days of the assessment orders. The assessee contended that the orders were received late, and thus the appeals were filed within the appropriate timeframe. Additionally, for the penalty appeals, the ld. CIT(A) decided the matters ex-parte without proper notice to the assessee. The Tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the issue of delayed receipt of the assessment orders and had not followed the principles of natural justice in the penalty appeals, leading to the restoration of all appeals for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668814 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BINISHA BABY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"ITA Nos.65 to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH:COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.65 to 68/Coch/2025 AssessmentYears:2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 respectively Jins Dominic Puthenpurackal House Palampra PO Podimattom Kottayam 686512 Kerala PAN NO : AKIPJ3480D Vs. ITO Kottayam APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Binisha Baby, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 28.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 O R D E R PERPRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeals of the assessee are arising out of orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as detailed below: Sl. No. Appeal No. AY Order dated DIN & Notice Order No. Section 1. ITA No.65/Coch/ 2025 2013- 14 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/ 1070970109(1) 271(1)(c) of the Act 2. ITA No.66/Coch/ 2025 2013- 14 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/ 1070968864(1) 143(3) of the Act 3. ITA No.67/Coch/ 2025 2014- 15 6.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024- 25/1070970443(1) 271(1)(c) of the Act 4. ITA No.68/Coch/ 2025 2014- 15 16.12.2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024- 25/1071256438(1) 143(3) of the Act ITA Nos.65 to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam Page 2 of 4 2. Out of the present four appeals of the assessee, two appeals are for quantum and two appeals are for penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since facts and issues are similar in both years and both years are emanating from the orders of the same ld. CIT(A), these are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, it is observed that there was a delay in filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A). 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the appeals filed before ld. CIT(A) were time barred. In other words, the appeals were not filed within 30 days of the passing of the assessment orders. 5. We are taking the assessment year 2013-14 as a lead year and discussing the facts of this year. It is the case of ld. CIT(A) that the impugned order for AY 2013-14 has been passed on 29.3.2022, and the assessee is contending that the assessee has been received the order of assessment on 10.10.2022 and the assessee filed appeal on 14.10.2022. Similar are the facts for AY 2014-15. In that year, the assessment order is passed on 26.3.2022, which has been received by the assessee on 10.10.2022 and the appeal was filed on 15.10.2022. The ld. CIT(A) on the basis of these facts dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limineon the ground that assessee failed to provide any reason for the belated service of assessment order i.e. on 14.10.2022 for AY 2013-14 and on 15.10.2022 for AY 2014-15. ITA Nos.65 to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam Page 3 of 4 6. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that no show cause notice has ever been issued by the ld. CIT(A)’s office seeking explanation with respect to the belated service of assessment order at the address of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. So far as appeals of penalty for these assessment years are concerned, there is no delay in filing of these appeals.However, the ld. CIT(A) has decided the matter ex-parte as nobody appeared from the side of assessee. 7. Ld. D.R. appearing on behalf of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. After considering the rival submissions, we observe that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to mention anything expressly in his order as to whether his office has issued any notice to the assessee, seeking explanation of the assessee vis-à-vis receipt of order of assessments. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to provide the detailed reasons for belated receipt of the assessment orders of these years. 8.1 So far as the appeals related to the penalty are concerned, it is observed that in respect of these appeals, office of ld. CIT(A) has issued only one notice to the assessee and thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) decided the matter ex-parte in utter disregard of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, these appeals are also restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.65 to 68/Coch/2025 Jins Dominic, Kottayam Page 4 of 4 Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Jun, 2025 Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) Accountant Member Sd/- (Prakash Chand Yadav) JudicialMember Bangalore, Dated 23rd Jun, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Cochin. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Cochin. "