AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AY 2018-19. ITA 5791 pertains to a penalty u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) and ITA 5792 pertains to a penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
ITA 5791 arises from order dated 26.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC. ITA 5792 arises from order dated 26.03.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Act by NFAC.
Both the penalty orders have been passed in an ex parte manner since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), from time to time.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT challenging the penalties levied on merits as also raising the ground of denial of opportunity.
On the last date of hearing, the Ld.AR stated that both the impugned orders were passed in an ex parte manner since the tax consultant of the assessee was not alert enough to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). It was a prayer that the assessee deserves relief on merits and for that purpose a proper opportunity of being heard was needed to be provided.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back for fresh consideration.
We have perused the documents before us and have heard both the sides. It is seen that both the impugned orders are ex parte in nature and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned orders and remit both of them back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be expected to be vigilant about the opportunities provided by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) would consider the submissions of the assessee and pass a speaking order.
In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.