ITO WARD - 3(3), NOIDA vs. SATYAJEET PANDEY, NOIDA

In the instant case, on the basis of AIR information, it was revealed that the Assessee had purchased an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.30,09,000/- during the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, in order to verify the transaction, information was called from the Assessee u/s. 133(6) of the Act on dated 30.11.2015, in pursuance thereof, the Assessee did not make any compliance. Therefore, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and statutory notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 05.08.2016. Still, the Assessee did not make any compliance. Therefore, it was understood by the Assessing Officer that it clearly implies that the Assessee had nothing to explain regarding the source of investment of Rs.30,09,000/- invested in the acquisition of immovable property and consequently, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.30,09,000/- (sale consideration) and Rs.1,52,000/- ( paid as stamp duty) as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act.

The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued the notice dated 01.12.2016 u/s. 274 of the Act whereby the Assessee was asked to furnish explanation by 29.12.2016. The Assessing Officer further issued another notice dated 11.04.2017, however, both the notices remained un-complied. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 07.06.2017 imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs.9,66,789/- on the concealed income of Rs.31,61,000/- (Rs.30,09,000 + 1,52,000).

The Assessee being aggrieved against the penalty order preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 31.12.2018 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the ground of delay of 263 days in filing of the appeal.

Though in the instant case, the grievance of the Assessee is at stake, however, the appeal under consideration has been filed by the Revenue Department on the ground of jurisdiction of the then ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order, therefore considering the peculiar facts as the jurisdiction of the then ld. Commissioner who passed the impugned order under challenge is in controversy and under challenge , we are inclined to decide this appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Our attention was drawn to the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in & Others, wherein the coordinate Bench, without going into the merits of the quantum appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of Assessee i.e., ITA No. 1192/Del/2020 for the assessment year 2009-10 which is also consideration before us, restored the same to the file of the ld. CIT(A) having proper jurisdiction over the Assessee, for decision afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. Commissioner and to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) having jurisdiction over the case under consideration for deciding the same afresh, suffice to say, by giving reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.