DEVADBASON JOHN CHRISTOPHER,CUDDALORE CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2, CUDDALORE, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 556/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 June 2023AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was based on incorrect facts and pertained to a different assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the NFAC to adjudicate the assessee's appeal properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal to the NFAC was against a penalty order under section 271(1)(b). However, the NFAC's appellate order dealt with a different assessee and a penalty under section 271B for belated filing of a tax audit report.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal against the penalty order, and if the appellate order was based on correct facts pertaining to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 271B,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.

Hearing: 26.06.2023Pronounced: 26.06.2023

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2012-13 Devadhason John Christopher, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C 300, 3rd South Cross, Mariappanagar, Ward 2, Chidambaram, Cuddalore 608 002. Cuddalore. [PAN:AELPJ4946D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 06.03.2023 for the assessment year 2012-13 vide DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050456680(1).

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Bench has noticed that the assessee has raised a specific ground at ground No. 4, which reads as under:

4.

The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that non adjudication of the appeal filed by the Appellant vide Ack No. 133365620060222 against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act vide DIN and Order No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2021-22/1038549799(1) was wholly unjustified.

3.

We have perused the penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] towards levy of penalty of ₹.10,000/- each for non compliance of notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 01.12.2020 and 25.08.2021. However, on perusal of the appellate order, we find that the information given in the cause title relates to the assessee, whereas, the body of the entire order right from “Facts of the case in brief” onwards till end of the order pertains to some other assessee [Smt. Kamla Devi Sethia, legal heir of Late Shri Paras Mal Sethia – PAN: ADBPS0050L], which deals with levy of penalty of ₹.1,50,000/- under section 271B of the Act towards belated filing of tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act.

4. Under the above facts and circumstances, we direct the ld. CIT(A)[NFAC] to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee filed against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act dated 07.01.2022 vide DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(b)/2021-22/1038549799(1).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th June, 2023 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →