PRAVEENA SINGH ,BANGALORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 1227/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Smt. Praveena Singh against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The appeals were delayed due to the assessee's non-resident status, residing in Germany, which hindered her ability to follow up on the proceedings. The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld.CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without adequately notifying the assessee, thus not providing her a fair opportunity to contest the assessments and penalties imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matters back for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716888 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2025
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR GANESH D
• Assessee Lawyers: GOKUL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Praveena Singh, 180, 5th Main Lakshmi Layout, Arekere, Bangalore – 560 076. PAN: BBDPS5235A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(3)(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gokul, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 13-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 26/11/2024 and 18/12/2024 in respect of A.Y. 2018-19. Both these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee filed the quantum appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 117 days in ITA No. 1226/Bang/2025 and the penalty appeal with a delay of 89 days in ITA No. 1227/Bang/2025 and enclosed applications to condone the said delay in filing the appeals. In the application to condone the said delays, the assessee submitted that she is a non-resident and Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 residing in Germany and therefore she was not able to follow up the appeal proceedings and also not followed up the assessment proceedings. Hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal. The assessee further submitted that only after noting that the order has been passed on both the appeals, the assessee took steps to engage an advocate and finally the appeals were filed with a delay of 117 days and 89 days respectively. 3. We have considered the said reasoning and also in the interest of justice, we are condoning the said delays in filing the appeals. 4. At the outset, we find that the order of the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) in both the quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeal are ex-parte orders. The assessee submitted that she is a non-resident residing at Germany and therefore she has no knowledge about the notices issued by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore prayed to grant an opportunity to represent the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). We have also noticed that before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed an adjournment application in respect of the quantum appeal on 28/10/2024 seeking four weeks’ time to respond to the notice issued. The Ld.CIT(A) had accepted the request and adjourned the appeal to 28/11/2024. In the meanwhile, the assessee also filed additional grounds in respect of the quantum appeal on 15/11/2024. The Ld.CIT(A) without considering the appeal has been adjourned to 28/11/2024, passed the order on 26/11/2024 itself. This shows that the Ld.CIT(A) had not granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee to put forth their case before him. We have also considered the fact that the assessee is a non-resident and residing in Germany and therefore she sought for time to file the written submissions as well as the documents. In such circumstances, the order of the Ld.CIT(A), without granting a reasonable opportunity is not in accordance with law and therefore we are setting aside the same and remit this issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 4 ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 ITA No. 1227/Bang/2025: 5. In this appeal, the assessee had challenged the ex-parte penalty order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that the issue was not decided on merits. 6. We have also considered the submissions that the AO had made the ex-parte penalty order without hearing the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal for the reason that the quantum appeal was already dismissed by him. In the order in ITA No. 1226/Bang/2025, we have already set aside the quantum appeal order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. In such circumstances, we are also setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) insofar as the penalty appeal is concerned and remitted the same to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration along with the quantum appeal. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 20th August, 2025. /MS / Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 4 ITA Nos. 1226 & 1227/Bang/2025 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "