MARUTI PLASTO MOULDING,GUWAHATI vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 29.09.2018 declaring NIL income. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') observed that the assessee had set off brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹43,31,768/- pertaining to AY 2013-14, which had already been disallowed during the assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18. Consequently, the Ld. AO declined the claim for set-off and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.04.2021, and assessed the total income at ₹43,31,770/-. Following the assessment of the total income, penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act on 28.04.2021. Despite the assessee's request on 29.09.2021 to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance pending their quantum appeal, it is alleged that the Ld. AO proceeded with the penalty adjudication after the quantum appeal was dismissed by the NFAC on 22.01.2024. The Ld. AO concluded that the assessee had deliberately under-reported its income by misrepresenting and suppressing facts regarding the wrongful claim of set-off. Consequently, the Ld. AO levied a penalty of ₹18,48,936/- being 200% of the tax payable on the under-reported income, u/s 270A(9)(a) r.w.s. 270A(8) of the Act, vide order dated 19.09.2024. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who observed that despite repeated statutory notices, the assessee had failed to pursue the appellate proceedings effectively and to submit any evidence or rebut the findings of the Ld. AO regarding the under-reporting of income.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO were ex parte and sufficient opportunity was not provided. Before the Ld. AO also the required details could not be filed inadvertently. It was requested that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity of being heard so that necessary evidences could be filed as the penalty is not liable to be imposed.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A). A perusal of the penalty order shows that proper compliance could not be made before the Ld. AO and also before the Ld. CIT(A), as the notices for hearing issued by email were not complied with and therefore, the appeal was also dismissed.

Since there was no proper compliance before both the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A), in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered by the Bench that the request of the assessee to set aside the case before the Ld. AO may be allowed so that a proper Maruti Plasto Moulding. opportunity of being heard may be provided. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter of penalty before the Ld. AO for passing the penalty order de novo. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission it wants to make and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 1st June, 2026. [Sonjoy Sarma] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 01.06.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Guwahati Benches, Guwahati.

Guard File. //// By order