GOVINDHAN SENTHIL,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

The assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The A.O noticed from the GST records and bank transactions that the assessee has carried out business activities and has also deposited substantial amounts of cash into the bank account. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee did not file the return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act and also did not respond to the notices issued calling for details. The A.O therefore completed the assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act assessing the income at Rs.6,04,54,287/-. The A.O subsequently initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A and 271AAC(1) of the Act. the assessee did not respond to the notices issued during the penalty proceedings also and therefore the A.O levied a penalty of Rs.3,28,000/- for under-reporting of income in consequent to misreporting of income u/s. 270A of the Act. The A.O also levied penalty u/s. 270AAC(1) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 46,25,684/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A) against both the orders of penalty. There is a delay of 152 days in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed both the appeals in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

There is a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons in for delay in filing the appeal as extracted below:

Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee reiterated that the reasons as stated in the condonation petition before the Tribunal are the reasons for the delay before the CIT(A) also. The Ld. AR further submitted that the tax counsel appointed by the assessee did not provide proper support which resulted in non-appearance before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR also submitted that the appeal against the quantum additions made by the A.O is pending before the CIT(A) and yet to be disposed. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the present appeals against the penalty being consequential may also be remitted back to the CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remit the appeals back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the issue pertaining to the penalty u/s. 270A and 271AAC(1) of the Act along with the quantum appeal and decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.