Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17, which dismissed the appeals ex-parte and refused to condone the delay. The original assessment involved additions for short-term capital gains and interest, as well as penalty proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The penalty levied was deleted as the quantum appeal was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should have been condoned and whether the assessment should be remanded for de novo proceedings.
Sections Cited
48, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR.BRR KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Santuben Patel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 208, Patel Vas, Ward-4(2)(3), Gota Village, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-382481. [PAN No. BPQPP7604P] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri Mohit Balani, AR Respondent by: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2025 O R D E R Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi vide order dated 29.08.2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, involving quantum appeal and levy of penalty.
The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in passing the impugned order, ex-parte.
2. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the CIT(A). -2058/Ahd/2024 Asst.Year 2016-17 - 2–
3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of f 45,66,671/- towards short-term capital gains without granting the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition and improvement, thereby ignoring the provisions of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest U/S.234A/B/C/D. 5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.
At the outset the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings the assessee has made submission along with the relevant documents & information and also mentioned the reasons for the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee. We also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer, hence in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and should not take unnecessary adjournments.
Since the quantum appeal stands set-aside to the Assessing Officer for framing assessment de-novo, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby deleted. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate the penalty based on the Asst.Year 2016-17 - 3– outcome of the assessment order passed in consequences to this order. The assessee shall comply to all the notices issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time failing which, the AO shall initiate penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Act.
In the combined results, the appeal of the assessee in for AY 2016-17 is dismissed as infructuous.