Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y: 2013-14) Omprakash Vasant Vs. Director of Income Tax Jambhale, (I&CI) Flat No. 205, A/4 1st Floor, R.No. 111, Dreams Complex, LBS Mantur Mandir, Tardeo Road, Opp Bhandup Rly Road, Grant Road (W) Stn, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 007. Thane – 700 078. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AFZPJ4910J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mr.H.M. Bhatt. Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) – 33, Mumbai passed u/s 271FA and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The order dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer is excessive, unlawful, against the provisions of Omprakash Vasant Jambhale., Mumbai. - 2 - Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Annual Information Return (AIR) was filed by the assessee on 28th August, 2015 for the Financial Year 2012-13.
The assessee being the temporary Joint Sub- Registrar had started his office as a temporary officer from 03.10.2012. However, no regular posting of Sub- Registrar was made and additional charge was held by some other Registrar.
The new incumbent was not made aware about the non- filing of AIR return by the earlier charge and hence there was failure on part of Assessee. However, after such non compliance being brought to the notice of the Assessee, assessee immediately filed the same.
The Honorable Assessing Officer has levied the penalty u/s 271 FA of Rs 73,100/- for such delay. The assessee hereby pleads to condone the delay caused and waive off the penalty so levied. The non filing wasn't intentional and the in process of handling over the charge of office assessee wasn't informed about the non-compliance.
6. The officer failed to appreciate the fact that there was no concealment of income on part of Appellant.
Further, Honorable CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Hence, the assessee hereby pleads to condone the delay caused and waive off the penalty so levied.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is Joint Sub Registrar Mumbai City-4 and was required to file the Annual Information Report (AIR) under provisions of Sec. 285BA r.w.r. 114E for the F.Y 2012-13 by 31.08.2013 and it was not filed. Whereas a letter was issued by the revenue on Omprakash Vasant Jambhale., Mumbai. - 3 - 06.08.2015 for explaining the reasons for not filing the requisite annual information for the F.Y 2012-13 and there was no compliance. Subsequently, another letter 20.08.2015 was issued to Joint Sub Registrar, Mumbai to offer explanations for the delay on or before 27.08.2015 otherwise the failure will be liable for penalty u/s 271FA of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, the Joint Sub Registrar, Mumbai has informed vide letter dated 27.08.2015 that the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Mumbai has started functioning from 03.10.2012 and the first AIR is for the Financial year 2012-13. Further, there was no regular posting of Sub Registrar and the additional charge was held by some other Registrar and the delay is due to handing over of the charge and the information could not be filed. The Revenue was not satisfied with the explanations and observed that there is a delay in filing the AIR for the F.Y 2012-13 by 731 days and has levied penalty u/s 271FA of the Act of Rs.73,100/- vide order dated 01.09.2015.
3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT(A) has Omprakash Vasant Jambhale., Mumbai. - 4 - confirmed the penalty and dismissed the appeal.. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the knowledge of the bench that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order for non prosecution and maintainability of the appeal. We find none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).
5. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that there is no appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were also issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte on non maintainability without going into the merits of the case. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notice of hearing, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to Omprakash Vasant Jambhale., Mumbai. - 5 - prosecute the appeal. We find that the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the levy of the penalty and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case before the CIT(A) along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2022.