INDU DEVI TIBAREWAL,CUTTACK vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CUTTACK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/CTK/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 April 2024AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim of agricultural income. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside to be redone if necessary.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against orders confirming additions to income and levying penalty. The assessee argued they did not get adequate time to respond to a remand report and could prove agricultural income if given another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to substantiate agricultural income and whether the penalty for concealment of income was justified without a proper quantum assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT, Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 25/0Pronounced: 25/0

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.312/CTK/2023
ITA No.313/CTK/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ITA No.312/CTK/2023 is an appeal 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. is an appeal filed by the assessee 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 : Assessment Year : 2013- 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.

3.

Shri K.K.Bal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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 : Assessment Year : 2013- 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.

7.

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.

8.

In the result, appeal in is partly allowed and the appeal in is allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2024.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →