SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH VERMA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER
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?
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
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:-
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)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026