JAMEEL UR RAHAMAN,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 29.06.2022. The order of the CIT(A) arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, imposing penalty u/s 271D of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, having income from capital gains. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the return of income was filed on 19.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,38,940. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 23.12.2019 accepting the returned income. In the said assessment order, the A.O. noted that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.59,82,000

Aggrieved by the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) fixed the hearing on 17.06.2022 and 20.06.2022. In response to the above said hearing dates, neither the assessee nor his representative filed any submission nor sought for any adjournment. Consequently, the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that the assessee is a farmer and not educated. It was submitted that the assessee was not aware of the change of law during the year under consideration (i.e., 01.06.2015 section 269SS of the I.T.Act). It was submitted that even the Sub-Registrar of the Department of Stamps and Registration has not intimated the assessee as regards the consequence of . Sri.Jameel Ur Rahaman receipt of cash. As regards non-compliance to hearing notices issued by the first appellate authority, the learned AR submitted that the assessee was not in receipt of the same and prayed the matter may be restored to the CIT(A) so that the assessee could defend his case stating that there is reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the A.O. and the CIT(A).

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The CIT(A) had fixed the hearing of the case on 17.06.2022 and 28.06.2022 vide hearing notices issued on 13.06.2022 and 23.06.2022, respectively. To the above said hearing notices, there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The assessee did not file written submission nor sought for an adjournment of the case. Therefore, the CIT(A) decided the issue ex parte. We strongly deprecated the action of the assessee in not appearing before the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to prove his case that there was reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for accepting cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. Accordingly, the issues raised in this appeal are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) for an expeditious disposal of the . Sri.Jameel Ur Rahaman matter. The CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.