CHANDRA BALI SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX WARD -3(1), MIRZAPUR

O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. That in any view of the matter order passed u/s 271(l)(b) by order dated 17.09.2019 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 is bad on both on fact and in law.

2. That in any view of the matter the assessee has made necessary compliance on each and every date and there was no bonafide intention of not co-operating with the department but under unavoidable circumstances on some date the assessee was not aware of the notices hence penalty imposed is highly unjustified. 3. That in any view of the matter in past no penalty was ever imposed nor there was any non compliance hence penalty imposed is highly unjustified. 4. That in any view of the matter the assessee reserves his rights to take any fresh ground of appeal before hearing of appeal.”

2. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing exparte impugned order. He has further pointed out that the Assessing Officer has also passed exparte assessment order without giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing as well as to comply with the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act. He has referred to the assessment order dated 28.06.2016 and submitted that the Assessing Officer stated to have issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 30.05.2016 and the assessment order was passed on 28.06.2016 without giving further opportunity to the assessee or issuing any show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act. Thus, the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer in a haste which amounts to violation of principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given appropriate opportunity of hearing as well as to furnish the requisite details as sought in the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act. The ld. AR has further pointed out that the assessee has challenged the assessment order by filing the appeal before the CIT(A), which is still pending before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, he has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee.

3. On the other hand, ld. D.R. has objected to the setting aside of the matter to the record of the CIT(A) and submitted that the CIT(A) granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee but nobody has attended the hearing before the CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed exparte. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. It is manifest from the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act that the Assessing Officer issued only one notice u/s. 142(1) on 30.05.2016 and the exparte assessment order was passed on 28.06.2016. After issuing the notice u/s. 142(1), the Assessing Officer has not mentioned any other notice or show cause notice issued to the assessee. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee was not given further opportunity by the Assessing Officer, either to show cause for passing the exparte assessment u/s. 144 or to furnish the requisite details. In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I am of the consider opinion that the appeals arising from the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act ought to have been decided after the adjudication of the quantum appeal pending before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after adjudication of the quantum appeal as well as giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

(Order pronounced on 21/01/2021 at Allahabad in the open Court through Video Conferencing)