Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order confirming the AO's action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had challenged the re-assessment order but not the penalty order before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner, however, affirmed the penalty, possibly due to an oversight.
Held
The tribunal observed that the assessee had not specifically challenged the penalty order before the Ld. Commissioner, leading to a potential oversight. For substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in affirming the penalty order without a specific challenge by the assessee, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 50C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13/12/2024 impugned herein passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the Assessment Year 2017-18 (AY).
(Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide order dated 30/03/2022 u/sec.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on account of ‘long term capital gain’ and Rs. 17.77 lakhs on account of ‘difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation’ u/sec. 50C of the Act.
Though, the Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, as it appears from the impugned order, eventually made no compliance and, therefore, Ld.Commissioner by considering the material available on record and in the constrained circumstances, decided the appeal of the Assessee dismissing the same and affirming the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Learned counsel for the Assessee has drawn attention of this Court to the ultimate findings arrived at by the Ld. Commissioner in para 4.3 of the impugned order, wherein it has specifically mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner “Hence, the AO’s action levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the present case is hereby confirmed and the sale ground of appeal
is dismissed on merit also”.
5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and documents available on record and the orders passed by the authorities below. From Form No. 35 and the first part of the impugned order, it appears that the (Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi) Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner had challenged the re-assessment order dated 30/03/2022 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the Ld. AO but not the penalty order, but somehow may be overlooking or inadvertent mistake, Ld.Commissioner affirmed the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision on the issues involved in the relevant assessment order, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essentially required. In case of subsequent default, Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.