SUHAS M. KATARIA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (2), PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05-08-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-10.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ex-parte of the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the AO imposed penalty of Rs.17,11,159/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). We note that the CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte of assessee. Thus, there was no opportunity for the assessee to prosecute the grounds of appeal raised before the AO. We find in the impugned order at Para No. 606 the CIT(A) observed that the AO added opening balance as reflected in the bank account to the total income of the assessee and held that the opening balance cannot be income. He directed the AO to exclude the said amount of Rs.6,10,257/- from concealed income for calculating the tax sought to be evaded. Therefore, when the CIT(A) remanded the issue to the file of AO for its fresh consideration in levying penalty to the extent exclusion of opening balance, in our opinion, the issue raised in the present appeal does not stand, therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of AO for its fresh consideration. The ld. DR did not object in remanding the matter to the file of AO for its fresh adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.