LOHITH KUMAR,UDUPI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MANGALURU

ITA 64/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Lohit Kumar, against the orders of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji, related to the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years. The primary issue was the dismissal of the assessee's appeals by the CIT(Appeals) on the grounds of being barred by limitation, citing a delay of 1110 days without valid reason for condonation. The assessee argued that the delay was due to not receiving the penalty order or notice of hearing, which was supported by evidence of incorrect email correspondence by the department. The Tribunal, considering the liberal approach required in such cases, decided to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37670 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH SOWKAR
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year 2349/Bang/2024 2013-14 2350/Bang/2024 2017-18 2351/Bang/2024 2018-19 62/Bang/2025 2014-15 63/Bang/2025 2015-16 64/Bang/2025 2016-17 65/Bang/2025 2019-20 Lohit Kumar, Door No.9-134, Near Syndicate Bank, Udyavara Pithrodi Post, Udupi. PAN: APKPK 7120E Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Manish Sowkar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Prithviraj Kamble, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 06.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench All these appeals of the assessee are against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji as per details given below related to imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and for the sake of convenience disposed of by this common order:- ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024 & 62 to 65/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 ITA No. Assessment Year CIT(A) Order DIN Date 2349/Bang/2024 2013-14 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070693916(1) 27.11.2024 2350/Bang/2024 2017-18 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694391(1) 28.11.2024 2351/Bang/2024 2018-19 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694481(1) 28.11.2024 62/Bang/2025 2014-15 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694000(1) 27.11.2024 63/Bang/2025 2015-16 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694185(1) 28.11.2024 64/Bang/2025 2016-17 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694309(1) 28.11.2024 65/Bang/2025 2019-20 ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25 /1070694559(1) 28.11.2024 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the appeal filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) was barred by limitation and there was no valid reason for condonation of delay of 1110 days. 3. The ld. counsel pointed out that the assessee has not received any notice of hearing with respect to the penalty proceedings before the AO. When the Bench asked the counsel as to how assessee was aware of the levy of penalty, then he submitted that assessee came to know about the levy of penalty when the recovery proceedings were initiated against the assessee. The main plank of argument of the AR of the assessee is that the assessee never received the penalty order and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 4. The ld. DR pointed out that the revenue has sent the order levying penalty by registered post at the address mentioned by the ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024 & 62 to 65/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 assessee and hence the CIT(Appeals) has correctly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. We have gone through the paperbook filed by the assessee from page 1 to 13. The assessee has filed the copies of the correspondence of e-mails received from the department in the penalty proceedings. We observe that the department has sent the email id of one Balaji Consultant instead of correct email id of assessee which is [e-mail]. We observe that this email id is also available in the e-filing portal of the assessee and has been mentioned by the assessee in its return of income. So far as the contention of the ld. DR that it was sent via Speed Post and is not returned to the department is concerned, we note that there is no proof of service of the order of penalty or the notice of hearing in respect of the penalty proceedings with the departmental authorities. It is settled position of law that in the case of individual assessee, condonation of delay has to be decided with liberal approach. Therefore, we condone the delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. ITA Nos.2349 to 2351/Bang/2024 & 62 to 65/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 6. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( PRAKASH CHAND YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 17th March, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "