Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against orders making additions under Section 147 for AY 2016-17 and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Non-compliance at the CIT(A) stage was due to an incorrect email ID in the notice, and the ex-parte assessment was due to the assessee being in judicial custody.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the assessee's non-appearance and remanded both the quantum assessment and the consequential penalty proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the plausible reasons for non-compliance and judicial custody.
Key Issues
Whether the non-compliance by the assessee was for plausible reasons (incorrect email, judicial custody) warranting condonation and remand of both the quantum assessment and the consequential penalty order.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & MS. RENU JAUHRI
Per Bench : These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18-06-2025 and 19-06-20205 impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.
M/s. Simco Developers 2. Admittedly the notices sent by the Ld. Commissioner having contained other email but not as mentioned in Form no.
Thus, the assessee has established the plausible reason for non- appearance/non-compliance before the Ld. Commissioner in 1st appellate proceedings, initiated against the Assessment order dated 25/03/2022 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act, whereby additions of Rs. 2,50,89,000/- under the head short term capital gains and Rs. 86,664/- under the head income from other sources have been made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, non- appearance of the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner is condoned.
The Ld. Counsel has demonstrated the fact that the assessee was in judicial custody during the assessment proceedings which resulted into non-compliance by the Assessee and passing the assessment order more or less as ex-parte and therefore, it is prayed that the case be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer, instead of Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. DR is also agreed to that.
Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for decision afresh.
Second appeal i.e. 6305/M/2025 relates to the penalty levied to the tune of Rs. 87,12,793/- u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO vide order penalty dated 06/09/2022, on the basis of above additions and having effect of quantum additions. As the quantum case has already been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, thus this penalty order also requires fresh adjudication. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, this case is also remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.12.2025.