MR. VINAY KHAITAN,NOIDA vs. JCIT, NOIDA

The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 30.03.2016 of the CIT (A)-1, Noida relating to A. Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. For the sake of convenience both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, both these appeals were heard on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the IT Act by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal for both the years.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of quilts, cushions and accessories etc. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) on a total income of Rs.2,34,66,740/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,17,33,610/- for assessment year 2005-06. Similarly for assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.3,18,03,400/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,91,48,317/-. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who gave part relief to the assessee. Subsequently the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,33,66,740/- for assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.3,16,53,940/- for assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c ) and levied of penalty of Rs.2,20,000/- for assessment year 2005-06 and Rs.7,50,000/- for assessment year 2006-07. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer for both the years in the exparte order passed by him since none appeared before him despite service of notice.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that due to non appearance before the CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities granted by him, the Ld. CIT(A) in the exparte order passed by him confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. However, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and explain his case failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.