Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
O R D E R
PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kanpur arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts to confirm the Penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in this case.”
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called for hearing despite the notice was sent through RPAD as well as e-mail. It transpires
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ram Kishan Sewa Kendra, Mahoba from the record that even of the last date of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the appeal of the assessee was taken up for hearing and disposed ex parte.
The assessee is a partnership firm and owner of petrol pump. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.12.2014 declaring total income of Rs.13,02,160/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 20.12.2016 on a total income of Rs.14,02,130/-. The AO has recorded its satisfaction in the assessment order that the gross receipt from the petrol pump during the year is Rs.38,67,54,417/- which is more than the limit provided u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act and therefore the assessee was required to get its account audited. Despite of show-cause notice, the assessee did not furnish any audit report or filed the same electronically. The AO accordingly issued a show-cause notice u/s 271B on 20.12.2016. Even during the penalty proceedings, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271B of Rs.1,50,000/- vide order dated 29.06.2017.
The assessee challenged the order of the AO passed u/s 271B before the CIT(A). However there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) despite notice was issued for hearing 13.10.2017. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271B when there was no explanation on behalf of the assessee.
I have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. It is manifest from the record that the assessee is a habitual defaulter of compliance to the notices issued by the AO as well as CIT(A) and further there was no response from the assessee even to the notices issued by this Tribunal. Though the assessee’s conduct is very causal and negligible however taking a lenient view, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to explain
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ram Kishan Sewa Kendra, Mahoba before the CIT(A) as to why the penalty u/s 271B should not be levied. Accordingly the matter is set aside to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/11/2020.