MAHESHKUMAR LALJIDAS PATEL,VISNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 PATAN, PATAN
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYALMaheshkumar Laljidas Patel, Market Yard Visnagar, Visnagar-384315. [PAN :AGTPP7220 Q]
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated
09.01.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)” in short], arising out of penalty order under Sections 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”]
for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
“…….
[8] That penalty was imposed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in nature of equity and justice. Hence, it may therefore be deleted.
On 17/05/2019, Appellant received show cause notice u/s 271E of the Act requesting to give explanation about alleged loan repaid in cash of Rs.5,79,075/- to Shri Jagdishkumar Laljibhai Patel after lapse of more than 3
years on conclusion of assessment proceedings. Your appellant received show cause notice Dt. 10/5/2019 issued by Jt. CIT, Patan Range, Patan to attend on Dt.14/5/2019. It is observed by your appellant from the postal authorities record that the said show cause was dispatched only on Dt.14/5/2019 at 12.50
ITA Nos. 1021/Ahd/2025
Maheshkumar L PatelVs. ITO
Asst. Year : 2013-14
- 2–
pm and received by the appellant only on Dt.17/5/19 at the time when the first hearing as fixed had already gone. Your appellant consulted the known income-tax practitioner of the town and briefed the facts of the case. Till the time a suitable objection can be filed, your appellant received order imposing penalty u/s271E of the Act on Dt. 10/6/2019. No further opportunity was given to put forth the facts of the case and argue the matter.
Sub-section (1) of section 274 imposes a condition that no order imposing a penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In your appellant's case, there is gross violation of principles of nature justice and hence forth it is urged to delete the penalty.
[9] That once for alleged penalty u/s 271D for alleged contravention of accepting loan in cash is not sustainable, then penalty u/s 271E could not survive. It be held so.
…..”
The order in the case of the assessee pertaining to levy of penalty u/s 271D stands remanded to the JCIT for de novo proceedings. Since, in the instant case, the proceedings u/s 271D & 271E are interrelated, in the fitness of things, the matter is remanded to the file of the JCIT for de novo proceedings for levy of penalty or for dropping off the penalty proceedings after considering the submissions/reply of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25.08.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL)
VICE-PRESIDENT
Ahmedabad; Dated 25.08.2025
btk
ITA Nos. 1021/Ahd/2025
Maheshkumar L PatelVs. ITO
Asst. Year : 2013-14
- 3–
आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.