Condonation of delay restores ex parte assessments for de novo adjudication and re examination of consequential penalties.

Condonation of delay was granted where the assessee presented a bona fide, fact supported explanation, resulting in restoration of appeals. The tribunal held that ex parte assessment completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and the consequential penalty under section 270A were set aside because no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded; the matters are remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and re examination of penalty consequential on reassessment, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate and provide relevant information.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, for Assessment Year 2018-19 should be condoned; (ii) Whether the impugned ex-parte assessment order completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and the consequential penalty under section 270A should be set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned.

Analysis: The assessee filed statements of facts before the CIT(A) explaining reasons for delay. The explanation was examined on the record and found to be bona fide and supported by surrounding facts and circumstances. Having regard to the substantial monetary stakes involved and the principle that litigants should not be shut out of adjudication where a plausible explanation exists, the assessee's cause for delay was accepted. The Revenue did not press a substantive objection to restoration.

Conclusion: The delay in filing both appeals is condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex-parte assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and the consequential penalty under section 270A should be set aside and the matters restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The assessment and penalty were concluded without effective opportunity of hearing. The penalty under section 270A is consequential and depends on the outcome of the quantum adjudication. Considering the accepted condonation of delay and the need to afford the assessee an adequate hearing, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned orders and restore issues to the AO for de novo consideration, including re-examination of penalty in light of reassessment results. The assessee is directed to cooperate and provide relevant information to the AO.

Conclusion: The impugned orders of the CIT(A) are set aside and the issues (quantum and penalty) are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in favour of the assessee's right to be heard.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes by condoning delay and restoring the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and the penalty is re-examined consequentially.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a bona fide and sufficiently supported explanation is shown for delay, and where substantial contested assessments and consequential penalties would otherwise be decided without hearing, delay may be condoned and impugned orders set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication so that the assessee is afforded an effective opportunity of hearing and consequential penalties are re-examined in light of the reassessment.

---