DILIP BHAGWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ASST.COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.32,75,860/-. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.06.2018 by making

Since the assessee despite 7 opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not make any submission, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal and thereby sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by recording as under: “7.1. During the course of appeal proceedings, no written submission is filed by the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, decided on the basis of material available on records.

2. I have examined facts of the case, gone through the Order, SoF and GoA.

3. The appellant has taken three grounds of appeal. They all challenge the imposition of penalty on solo ground that the AO did not confront the valuation report from the appellant.

4. In this case, the addition of Rs.64,19,760/- was made for increase in profit, declared by the appellant, due to difference in valuation of immovable property. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant had claimed value of land at Rs.1,81,12,666/-. The AO referred the matter to valuation cell. During the proceedings before the valuation cell, the appellant did not cooperate and the valuation cell arrived at the figure of valuation of property at Rs.95,78,167/-. He, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the AO provided opportunities of being heard to the appellant which were not availed of by the appellant. The AO noticed that the appellant did not prefer appeal against the assessment order and concluded that the addition made in the assessment order had attained finality. The AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.6,99,758/-.

In result, the appeal is dismissed.”

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that despite notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.06.2018, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which another notice was issued on 10.12.2018. Again, there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.6,99,758/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. We find despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee for which he sustained the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, the 4 reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.