VIJAY PANDURANG YADHAV,KOLHAPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANG -2, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 416/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 October 2022AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee's contention that there were no cash loans in violation of section 269SS was noted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under section 271D for assessment year 2015-16. The penalty order was passed ex-parte, and the assessee failed to appear in lower appellate proceedings due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271D was rightly imposed when the assessee could not appear due to the pandemic and had a defense against the alleged violation of section 269SS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s order dated 01-08- 2021, passed in case No. ITBA/NFAC/250/2021-22/1034563601(1), in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing section 271D penalty of Rs.16,00,000/-, we note that not only the Assessing Officer penalty order dated 14-12-2019 is ex-parte but also he had failed to appear in the lower faceless appellate proceedings.

3.

Learned counsel sought to buttress the point the assessee’s non- appearance in both the lower proceedings as attributable to Covid-19 pandemic outbreak at its initial stage followed by various lockdown in the years 2000 and 2021. He has further placed on record the assessee’s detailed paper book running into 43 pages that there are no cash loans in violation of section 269SS in the impugned assessment years. Faced with this situation, we deem it proper to restore the assessee’s sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for this afresh adjudication as per law. The Revenue’s vehemently arguments supporting the impugned penalty are rejected to this limited extent. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th October, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →