PANCHARAM VERMA,BARABANKI V. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-5(4), BARABANKI

ITA 622/LKW/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the assessee, Pancharam Verma, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, which included a significant addition to the assessee's income and a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issues were the ex-parte nature of the assessment and the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation without condoning the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case and that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792664 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K. R. RASTOGI
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.621 & 622/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.621 & 622/Lkw/2025 Assessment year:2015-16 Pancharam Verma Village-Lahasi, Fatehpur, Barabanki-225305 PAN:BMMPP0157Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-5(4), Barabanki. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) These two appeals have been filed by the assessee, against the impugned appellate orders each dated 25/07/2025 for assessment year 2015-16 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“(CIT(A)”] for short (DIN & Notice No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1078912981(1) and (DIN & Notice No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1078913429(1) respectively. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.47,060/-. The Assessing Officer completed the Appellant by Shri K. R. Rastogi, C. A. Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R.) Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.621 & 622/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 assessment and passed assessment order under section 147 read with section 144/144B of the I.T. Act on 03/03/2023 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.63,53,060/- and made addition of Rs.63,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide penalty order dated 31/08/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty amounting to Rs.19,48,554/- was levied. Being aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer and penalty levied, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine on limitation ground, refusing to condone delay in filing of appeals. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the addition made and the penalty levied and confirmed by learned CIT(A). (C) We have heard both sides. We have perused the materials on record. Learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order ex-parte qua the assessee without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on limitation ground, refusing to condone the delay in filing of appeal. Learned A.R. for the assessee requested that the issue in dispute may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing de novo order. Learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A); and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. From the records, it is evident that there was sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act because of which the assessee could not file appeal in the office of learned CIT(A) within time frame mentioned in section 249(2) of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that this was a fit case for the learned CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of the appeal in his office Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.621 & 622/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 3 and to admit the appeal for decision on merits. The Assessing Officer has also not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. In response to a query from the Bench, in the light of the aforesaid facts, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the appeal may be decided by the Bench using discretion. In view of the foregoing, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (D) Since the quantum dispute is restored back to Assessing Officer for passing de novo order, the penalty dispute is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the fate of which will depend on the outcome of the quantum order passed by the Assessing Officer. (E) In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 04/12/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:04/12/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Printed from counselvise.com "