Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Appeal No.CIT(A), Madurai-2/10062/2019-20 dated 20.06.2022. The assessment was framed by the ACIT, Non- Corporate Circle-1, Madurai for the assessment year 2016-17 u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 28.06.2019.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) levying penalty u/s.271B of the Act. For this, assessee has raised various argumentative grounds which need not be reproduced.
At the outset, the ld.Counsel for the assessee took us through Ground No.4, that the CIT(A) failed to apply his mind on the submissions of the assessee and erred in passing a non-speaking order. For this, he relied on following ground No.4:- “4. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to apply mind on the submission and erred in passing a non-speaking order”
4. The ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the written submissions, statement of facts and grounds of appeal raised before CIT(A). He also took us through appellate order passed by CIT(A) and stated that the appeal was fixed before National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi twice i.e., on 10.03.2021 and 13.05.2022 by virtue of which, reply was filed vide letter dated 07.06.2022. The order of CIT(A) was dated 20.06.2022 but this reply was actually not considered by CIT(A) and he passed a cryptic and non-speaking order, in which he observed in para 7 as under:- “7. Facts of the case have been carefully perused. No reason has been furnished by the appellant in spite of reasonable opportunities given by the AO & NFAC. There is no reason to interfere with the AO’s order.”
5. When the above facts were confronted to ld. Senior DR, he could not controvert the fact situation, however he argued that the CIT(A)