SHRI MANISH RAICHAND SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘hereinafter called CIT(A)’) order no. CIT(A)-3/Ward- 2 . A.Y. 2011-12 3(3)(3)/10145/2018-19 order dated 24/12/2018 arising out of assessment order dated 28/03/2014. Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1)The learned CIT(appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.60,96,462/- levied by the A.O. for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the assessee. 2): He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the penalty on the ground of delay in furnishing appeal and without adjudicating the appeal on merit. 3). The disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Rs.1,94,63,646/- and addition u/s. 68 of rs. 2,56,000/- cannot be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 4): On the facts the ClT(appeals) ought to have condoned the delay in filing appeal and ought to have decided the appeal on merit. 5): On the facts no such penalty ought to have been levied. 6): The learned ClT(appeals) has erred in observing that delay was not bona fide and the assessee has acted negligently without properly appreciating the facts of the appellant. 7): He has erred in law and on facts in holding that appeal is not maintainable in view of provisions of section 249(2) of the I.T. Act.

Briefly stating the facts of the case are that assesse is in the business of logistic and shipping etc. And case was selected for scrutiny and assessee’s Chartered Accountant Shri Manish Shah appeared before the Ld. A.O. but did not file the information called for. Therefore, in the absence of any information or co-operation from the assessee’s side, Ld. A.O. assessed total income of Rs. 2,82,76,988/- under different heads.

Thereafter appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was delayed by 1375 days and assessee’s contention was that he has not received in order from the department, he came to know about the order only when Tax Recovery Officer notice served to him. The Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Now assesse has come before us and requested that this case may kindly be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) or Assessing Officer as because of some reason required details were not filed before the lower authorities.

Thus in the interest of justice, we set aside this matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide matter afresh with the condition that assesse shall deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000/- with the Department within 60 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

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