SHRI H.V CHIKKAGARIGA REDDY ,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, CHIKKABALLAPUR

The assessee is aggrieved by the learned CIT (Appeals) in dismissing the appeal, in limine.

We hear the parties and perused the material on record. The assessment of the assessee was completed on 28.12.2011 by making an addition of Rs.9.95 lakhs. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings and levied a penalty of Rs.2.98 lakhs under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The assessee challenged the penalty order by filing an appeal before the CIT (Appeals). In Form No.35, the date of receipt of penalty order was mentioned as 3.7.2012 and the appeal was filed before the CIT (Appeals) on 9.8.2012 resulting in delay of 7 (seven) days. Since the assessee did not file any condonation petition, the CIT (Appeals) sought explanation from the assessee. The assessee replied that he received penalty order only on 21.7.2012 and the date of receipt was wrongly mentioned in Form No.35. Accordingly, it was submitted that the appeal was filed within the time. Not convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine.

We notice that the assessee has furnished a letter before the CIT (Appeals) stating that the order was received only on 21.7.2012 and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal before him. It was also mentioned that the date of receipt of order was wrongly mentioned in Form No.35. Even if the date

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