SEEMA RAJESH BABAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1567/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 July 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the penalty issue on merits and not dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay. The assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 26,40,071/- to the assessee's income due to a difference in sales figures and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without deciding on merits, dismissing the appeal due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the penalty without deciding the appeal on merits, solely on the ground of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor – AR
For Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR
Hearing: 13/07/2022Pronounced: 15/07/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Y. 2014-15 dated 07.06.2019.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the activity of installation of mobile towers. The assessee filed its return of income on 25.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.19,49,317/- for the impugned year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) noticed that the sales as per ITS Data was Rs.2,75,84,344/- whereas the sale as per profit and loss account was Rs.2,46,44,273/-. Despite

A.Y. 2014-15 Seema Rajesh Babar Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune (A) opportunity given to the assessee to file submission, the assessee failed to explain the difference in sales. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs.26,40,071/-. The AO further levied penalty of Rs.7,89,777/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A) uphold the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

5.

We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is an admitted position that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the penalty issue on merits instead he dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay alone. Therefore, the assessee, in our view, should not be precluded an opportunity of hearing on merits, simply on account of delay alone. Our view is further strengthened by the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in Kashmir Road Lines Vs. DCIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 5 where in it was held that even when the assessee is not interest in pursuing the appeal, even then, the ld.CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal of merits. In view of the aforementioned reasons, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh

A.Y. 2014-15 Seema Rajesh Babar Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune (A) on merits as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →