Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ A ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R PER BENCH : The assessee has filed appeals against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore passed under Section 271(1)(b) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Since all the five appeals are on similar 2 to 2321/Bang/2018 issues, they are heard together and consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the appeal in and the facts narrated therein. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
3. The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a contractor and in the course of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act there were no proper compliance as observed by the Assessing Officer and hence Best judgement assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dt.20.12.2017 was passed. Subsequently order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was passed for non-compliance of Notice under Section 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Whereas the penalty order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act dt.11.12.2017 was passed the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals) and the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the 4 to 2321/Bang/2018 assessee's appeal and has confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has not considered the submissions of the assessee in respect of compliance and there is no proper finding on submissions made at para 7 of the learned CIT(Appeals) order. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of learned CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is in respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned Authorised Representative’s contentions are that the learned CIT(Appeals) has not considered the submissions made in the penalty proceedings at para 7 on the jurisdiction of provisions of Section 153C of the Act. The assessee has filed explanations as compliances. We found that the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative are realistic as the assessee has made elaborate submissions on the relevant facts but there is no finding by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is cryptic and considering the principle of natural justice and the fact that the order is non- speaking, we set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate afresh and pass a logical and 5 ITA Nos.2317 to 2321/Bang/2018 speaking order. Further the assessee also should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal
of assessee for statistical purposes.
6. Similarly the assessee has filed an appeal ITA No.2318 to 2321/Bang/2018 on the identical issues. Hence the decision rendered in shall apply to these cases also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of assessee are also allowed for statistical purposes and restore to the file of CIT(Appeals) for adjudication afresh on merits.
7. In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos. 2318 to 2321/Bang/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Nov., 2019.