SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH VERMA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1043/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 June 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the written submissions filed before the ITAT. This was done in the interest of equity and justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and did not file written submissions. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO for concealment of income. The assessee has now filed written submissions before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) and the ITAT is restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1043/JP/2017

Hearing: 20/06/2018

PER BHAGCHAND, AM

The appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order of the ld.

CIT(A), Ajmer dated 07-11-2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13

raising therein following ground of appeal.

‘’Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in:-

1.

The AO has not been able to identify whether it is of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

ITA No.1043/JP/2017 Shri Virendera Singh Verma vs ITO, 2(1), Ajmer 2. Confirming penalty u/s 271(1)© of Rs. 5,00,000/- without appreciating the facts.’’

2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges

from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:-

‘’3.0 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appeal was fixed for hearing on 19-07-2017, 14-08-2017, 28- 08-2017, 11-09-2017, 25-09-2017, 9-10-2017 and 7-11- 2017. No one has attended on any of the date of hearing and non written submission has been filed. Therefore, the appeal is decided after going through the penalty order, statements of facts and grounds of appeal as under.

4.0 The only ground of appeal is as under:- ‘’Under the facts and circumstances the AO has erred in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)© of Rs. 5,00,000/-

4.1 This ground of appeal relates to levy of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act.

4.2 I have gone through the penalty order, statement of facts and grounds of appeal carefully. It is seen from penalty order that the appellant had not filed any return of income u/s 139(1) or 139(4). When the department detected the transaction of sale of the property in which the appellant has earned capital gain, only then, the appellant had filed return of income on 8-10-2014 which was nonest in the eyes of law, as it was neither filed u/s 139(1) nor 139(4). Had the Revenue Authorities not detected, the appellant would not have declared any income to the department. Therefore, I am of the considered view that appellant has concealed the income of Rs. 23,23,310/- earned by him under the head ‘’long term capital gain’’. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- levied by the AO in respect of the concealed income of Rs. 23,23,310/- is hereby confirmed.’’

ITA No.1043/JP/2017 Shri Virendera Singh Verma vs ITO, 2(1), Ajmer

2.2 None attended the hearing on behalf of the assessee. However the

assessee filed the written submission praying therein to delete the penalty

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 5.00 lacs u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act.

2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.

CIT(A).

2.4 We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on

record including the written submission of the assessee. In this case, the

Bench noted that the assessee had neither filed any written submission

nor attended the hearing before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A)

has confirmed the penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act based

on the materials available before him at the time of hearing the appeal.

Since the assessee has filed the written submission before us praying

therein to delete the penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, it will

be in the interest of equity and justice to restore the appeal of the assessee

to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by considering the

written submission filed before the Bench. Thus the appeal of the

assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes.

ITA No.1043/JP/2017 Shri Virendera Singh Verma vs ITO, 2(1), Ajmer 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27-06-2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ fot; iky jko ½ ¼HkkxpUn½ (Vijay Pal Rao) (Bhagchand) U;kf;d lnL; /Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 27/06/ 2018 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Virender Singh Verma, Ajmer 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO , Ward- 2(1), Ajmer 2. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A). 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT, 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.1043 /JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →