SHRI ANILKUMAR M. JAIN,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2),, AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.0 The CIT(A) erred in upholding order u/s 271(1)(c) framed by the assessing officer. The order passed by the assessing officer is bad in law since it is contrary to the provisions of law and the facts of your appellant's case. It is submitted that it be so held now. 2.0 The CIT(A) on the facts and in view of law ought to have held that :-

The brief fact of the case is that the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 and 244 of the act was completed on 29th December, 2011. The assessee has claimed capital loss of Rs. 11,69,401/- in the return of income and the assessing officer has disallowed the loss to the extent of Rs. 6,77,791/- after invoking provision of sec 50C of the act. The assessing officer has also disallowed exemption u/s. 10(13A) of the act to the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings on both the disallowance u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessing officer has stated that ld. CIT(A) has confirmed both the additions on unaccounted expenses. Susequently, the ITAT has restored the matter back to the assessing officer for limited purpose for verifying the fact of unaccounted expenses. Thereafter, the case was reopened and assessment was made u/s. 144A r.w.s. 147 of the act. And the addition made u/s. 50C and disallowance u/s. 10(13A) of the act were sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- was made u/s. 10(13A) of the act pertaining to exemption u/s. 10(13A) as the assessee has not produced any evidence regarding payment of rent of Rs. 3 lacs. Consequently the assessing officer has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 80,000 of the act.

Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has failed to make compliance in appellate proceedings in spite of giving several opportunities by the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has submitted written submission stating that there was neither any concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty imposed by the assessing officer is bad in law. He has further submitted that the issue regarding household expenses and the payment of rent was examined by the assessing officer during the proceedings u/s. 143(3) and the mater travelled up to ITAT in connection with the addition of household expenses. He further stated that issue of addition u/s. 10(13A) had not directly arisen before the ITAT. On the other hand, the ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities. After hearing departmental representative and perusal of written submission of the assessee and material on record we consider it will be appropriate to restore this case to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding it on merit. Accordingly, the case is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh and the assessee is directed to make compliance to the appellate proceedings without any further default. Therefore the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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

Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद