Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
O R D E R PER BENCH: These are the three appeals filed by the assessee against the different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has filed these appeals challenging the orders of the CIT(A) on the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(c),271AA and 271F of the Act. , 427 & 428/Mum/2023 Maltidevi Rammilan Gupta, Mumbai. - 2 - Since these penalty orders pertaining to the same assessment year and issues are inter linked. Hence are clubbed, heard and a consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the as a lead case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld AO") erred in law and in facts of the case in levying penalty of Rs 5,000/- and the Ld Commissioner of IT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the same by not appreciating the facts properly.
The Ld AO erred in law and facts of the case by passing an order u/s 271 Fdt.23.12.2019 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") by overlooking the fact that the Appellant's premises was let out & was not occupied by him during the relevant period and therefore, therefore notices were handover to tenants, which is bad in law and also the facts have been wrongly interpreted.
The Ld Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs 5,000/- as penalty for non- compliance under section 271F.
The Ld A.O. erred in providing penalty for Rs. 5,000/- on account of non- compliance & non filing income tax return, even though the assessee was carried on a store of Vodafone M-paisa money transfer kiosk & customers cash was deposited in the account and same were transferred to the party as per the instructions of the customers. In the circumstances there is no question arises to penalize on account of non-compliance. Assessee , 427 & 428/Mum/2023 Maltidevi Rammilan Gupta, Mumbai. - 3 - had received only commission on the basis of the amount transferred online for her customers.
Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return on in response of the notice under section 142(1) on 08.12.2019 offering her actual income and which was less than income threshold limit prescribed for Income Tax return filing in view of the above she was not liable to file income tax return. In view of the above assessee should not penalize for undue compliance which is not applicable to her.
6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify all or any of the grounds of appeal 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a individual and was engaged in the business, Whereas in the F.Y 2016-17 there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and there was no compliance to the notice and finally the AO has made the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271F of the Act for non filing of return of income vide order dated 23-12-2019.
3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed the appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the facts and observed that there is no compliance in the proceedings, hence the penalty , 427 & 428/Mum/2023 Maltidevi Rammilan Gupta, Mumbai. - 4 - levied by the A.O. was confirmed and dismissed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer. Further, the assessee has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidence and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer in levy of penalty. The Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing referred at Page 5 Para 4 of the order, but there was no response and thus the , 427 & 428/Mum/2023 Maltidevi Rammilan Gupta, Mumbai. - 5 - Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to 5 would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeal also. Accordingly, the disputed issues are restored to the file of the , 427 & 428/Mum/2023 Maltidevi Rammilan Gupta, Mumbai. - 6 - CIT(A) on the similar directions and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 20.04.2023.