SAMIR NAGINDAS SHAH,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

These three appeals by the assessee against the common order dated 21-06-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

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 appeals by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

Since, the issues raised in all the three appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of ld. DR, we proceed to hear all the three appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

The only issue is to be decided in all the three appeals are as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB 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.3,18,655/- in A.Y. 2013-14 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, Rs.95,628/- in A.Y. 2014-15 and Rs.1,07,355/- in A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 271AAB of the Act, respectively. The assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). We note that the CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeals ex-parte of assessee. Thus, there was no opportunity for the assessee to prosecute the grounds of appeals raised before the CIT(A). The ld. DR did not object in remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A) for its fresh adjudication.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.