AVINASH NARAYAN KOTGIRE,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, NANDED

PDF · subscribers
ITA 749/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 September 2022AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessees were given three opportunities to explain the delay in furnishing audited books.

What were the facts?

The assessees failed to furnish their audited books of accounts by the due date, leading to penalties under Section 271B. The CIT(A) upheld these penalties, passing ex-parte orders without clear proof of notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalties under Section 271B were rightly imposed when the delay in furnishing audited books was due to communication gaps, and whether the CIT(A) orders passed ex-parte were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishnan – AR
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR
Hearing: 05/09/2022Pronounced: 28/09/2022

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.749/PUN/2019
ITA No.2126/PUN/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessee by Shri Hari Krishnan – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 05/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: These twin assessee’s has filed appeals; both for A.Y. 2016-17, arise against the CIT(A)-1, Pune’s separate orders dated 30.01.2019 passed in case no.ABD/CIT(A)-1/240/2017-18 and no.ABD/CIT(A)-

Avinash Narayanrao Kotgire & Anup Avinash Kotgire (02 Appeals)

1/241/2017 upholding the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalties of Rs.1,37,890/- and Rs.1,43,818/-; respectively involving proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”].

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

Identical delay of 10 days in filing of both these appeals stands condoned in light of assessee’s condonation averments date attributing reasons thereby not only to the CIT(A)’s ex-parte proceedings but also communication gap(s) at various levels.

3.

Next comes the identical issue of correctness of section 271B penalties amounting of Rs.1,37,890/- and Rs.1,43,818/-; respectively. Mr.Murkunde vehemently argued in support of the CIT(A)’s identical detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action that the assessees had failed to get their books audited followed by submissions thereof before assessing authority as per prescribed cut- off date on 17.10.2016. Learned counsel on the other hand made it clear in light of para 2 in Assessing Officer’s penalty order(s) dated 03.01.2018 that the assessees inter-alia had got their books audited 29.09.2016, but could only furnish the same on 23.03.2017 as against the due date(s) thereof falling on 17.10.2016. Mr.Harikrishnan,

Avinash Narayanrao Kotgire & Anup Avinash Kotgire (02 Appeals) therefore submitted that it is not an instance of failure on the assessees part in getting their respective books audited per se but the same only arose in furnishing the necessary books before the Assessing Officer in above terms which was on account of various issues including communication gap etc., with the auditor.

4.

It next transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)’s respective orders upholding the impugned penalties have been passed ex-parte. Mr.Murkunde took us through the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 2 page 2 that the assessees had been afforded ample opportunities of hearing but they chose not to appear. He could hardly rebut the fact that there is no indication in both these CIT(A)’s orders as to whether the corresponding hearing notice(s) actually stood served on the assessees.

5.

Faced with this situation, we are of the opinion that the instant twin assessees deserve yet another innings before the CIT(A) to explain the mitigating circumstances of the foregoing delay in furnishing their respective audited books during the course of assessment. We accordingly restore their instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

Avinash Narayanrao Kotgire & Anup Avinash Kotgire (02 Appeals)

6.

These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed for statistical purpose in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →