ADDL. CIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI VIJAY PANDEY, LUCKNOW

Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 against impugned appellate order dated 28/05/2020 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The only ground taken by Revenue is as under:

“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in cancelling the penalty of Rs.3,10,08,681/- imposed u/s 271D of the I. T. Act, ignoring the provision of section 269SS of the I. T. Act read with section 271D of the I. T. Act, which clearly lays down that no person shall take or accept any loan or deposit or any specified sum in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-.”

(B) At the very outset it was noticed that the Registry of this office has pointed out that the appeal filed by Revenue is not filed in prescribed form and is defective. Registry had issued defect memo and thereafter reminders to remove the defect. On 16th May, 2024, during the course of hearing, learned CIT, D.R. was directed to file revised Form No. 36 as per the defect pointed out by Registry. Despite substantial lapse of time since issue of defect memo by the Registry, and inspite of various opportunities by way of hearings from time to time, the appellant Revenue in the aforesaid appeal has not removed the defect. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed on account of failure on the part of Revenue to remove the defect intimated through defect memo. However, Revenue will be at liberty to approach the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in accordance with law, for restoration of this appeal after the defect is removed by the appellant Revenue. If such request is received in ITAT from Revenue, the same will be considered by ITAT in accordance with law having regard to relevant facts and circumstances.

(C) In the result, the appeal is dismissed on account of failure on the part of Revenue to remove the defect. (Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2025)