INDU DEVI TIBAREWAL,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CUTTACK
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: MANISH AGARWAL
Per Bench
ITA No.312/CTK/2023 is an appeal ITA No.312/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the filed by the assessee against the order u/s. 153A of the er u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the ld CIT(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 22.6.2023 in Appeal No. Bhubaneswar 22.6.2023 in Appeal No. Bhubaneswar-2/101101/2012- 13 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2013-14.
ITA No.313/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the assessee ITA No.313/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the assessee ITA No.313/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) order of the ld CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 22.6.2023 in Appeal 2, Bhubaneswar dated 22.6.2023 in Appeal
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No.312/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.313/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14
No.Bhubaneswar-2/10102/2012-13 confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14.
Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
It was submitted by ld AR that in respect of quantum assessment though the remand report has been issued to the assessee, the appellant did not get adequate time to respond to the same. It was the submission that it was on account of the absence of the documents in respect of agricultural income that the additions have been confirmed. It was the prayer that if the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the assesse would be in a position to convince the AO in respect of the agricultural income. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the file of the AO to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his case.
In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the assessee had made submission before the ld CIT(A) and when the ld CIT(A) called for remand report, the assessee had no reply to the remand report because he had no evidence. It was the submission that the issues must not be restored to the file of the AO as the assessee had been granted adequate opportunities.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the page 6 of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the ld CIT(A) has rejected
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No.312/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.313/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14
the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there was absence of any other document justifying the agricultural income as claimed by the appellant. Ld AR has admittedly submitted that he is in a position to prove the agricultural income if an opportunity is allowed. This being so, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
As we have restored the issue in quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, the penalty order passed by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in respect of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act no more survive and is to be redone by the AO, if required, in the set aside proceedings.
In the result, appeal in ITA No.312/CTK/2023 is partly allowed and the appeal in ITA No.313/CTK/2023 is allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2024.
Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 25/04/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS)
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No.312/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14 ITA No.313/CTK/2023: Assessment Year : 2013-14
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Indu Devi Tibarewal, C/O. Raj Kumar Tibarewal, Nayasarak, Cuttack- 753002 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Central Circle-1, Cuttack 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 4 | 4
