INDUPUR SRINIVASULA REDDY,NELLORE vs. ITO WARD-4, NELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 365/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 October 2022AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the CIT(Appeals) order to be non-speaking and lacking factual discussion. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271D for accepting a loan in cash, violating Section 269SS. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty without discussing the assessee's explanation.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D was rightly confirmed without a proper discussion of the assessee's explanation and the factual matrix of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Hearing: 13.10.2022Pronounced: 14.10.2022

BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Indupuru Srinivasula Vs. Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Nellore. Ward 4, PAN AAWPI4316D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri KPRR Murthy, (D.R.) Date of Hearing : 13.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Dt.29.06.2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). When the appeal was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing.

2.

We have heard the learned Senior DR and had carefully gone through the order of the NFAC which confirmed the levy of penalty. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the assessee had offered an explanation and made a detailed submission, and explained the circumstances under which loan was accepted in cash otherwise than through prescribed mode, violating the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. However, the NFAC order without discussing as to how the explanation offered by the assessee is not acceptable, simply confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act after citing certain judicial precedents.

2.1 Thus order of the CIT (Appeals), NFAC is not a speaking one and merely confirmed the levy of penalty without discussing the factual situation, and as to how factual situation of case, fits into the ratio of cases cited by the CIT (Appeals). Thus the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is bereft of discussion of facts and reasoning. Hence the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly we set aside NFAC and decide the matter in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

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

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →