Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S S VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER BENCH; These bunch of three appeals of the assessee for the assessment year [for short “AY”] 2011-12 is assailed against the first appellate order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short “CIT(A) /NFAC”] dt. 13/02/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
Ravindra Gambhir Patil to 425/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 2. The ITA No. 424/PUN/2023 and 423/PUN/2023 are agitated against the imposition of consequential penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act respectively. Since these appeals are inter connected and based on facts originated out of order of assessment passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, for the purpose of brevity and convenience these are heard together for a common order.
Clinching facts emerging from the assessment order and penalty orders are as under; 3.1 The appellant assessee is a non-filer. Upon the receipt of information from State Bank of India that the assessee has deposited a total cash of ₹1,39,56,850/- into his account maintained with Muktainagar Branch Jalgaon, the case of the assessee after recording reasons and obtaining approval was reopened by service of notice dt. 30/03/2018 u/s 148 of the Act.
ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
Ravindra Gambhir Patil to 425/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 3.2 In the event of assessee’s failure to attend further notices dt. 26/06/2018 and 27/10/2018 issued, the Ld. AO after putting the assessee to show case notices dt. 17/09/2018, 26/10/2018 & 27/10/2018 culminated the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by an order dt. 17/12/2018 and thereby brought to tax the entire amount of cash deposit as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
3.3 When assessee failed to represent his case in consequential penal proceedings, the Ld. AO culminated both penal proceedings by an order of even dt. 14/06/2019 imposing a minimum penalty of ₹41,62,290/- u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment & a penalty @0.5% u/s 271B of the Act for failure to comply with section 44AB of the Act.
These matters have travelled to the Tribunal, when aforestated quantum addition & levy of penalty without any effective representation were unsuccessfully agitated before first appellate authority.
ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
Ravindra Gambhir Patil to 425/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 5. After hearing to rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT, Rules 1963 perused the material placed on record. Without going into merits of the case, finding force in the submission of Ld. AR and after noting no objection from the Revenue, we remand these matters to the file of Ld. AO with a direction to accord further two effective opportunities to the appellant to adduce necessary documentary evidences in support of his claim and also direct to reframe the assessment de- nova and consequential levy of penalty (if any).
In result, these appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday 30st day of May, 2023.
-S/d- -S/d- S S VISWANETHTRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 31st day of May, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT-1, Nashik 4. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘B’, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. Ashwini 2:1 आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4