Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai in 18/AY:2014-15/CIT(A)-4 dated 07.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2 -: 2. Shri. L. Mohun, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Ms. R. Anita, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on non-prosecution as also on merits. It was a submission that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication and after granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate his case.
In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the learned CIT(A) had given nineteen opportunities, details of which are extracted in page-3, para-4 of the order of the learned CIT(A). It was a submission that even before the Assessing Officer, no details have been produced as is evident from page-2 of the assessment order. It was a submission that if the assessee is going to be granted another opportunity, then punitive cost may be levied on the assessee.
We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.
A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer shows that inspite of substantial opportunities being given, the assessee has not co-operated in the assessment proceedings. A perusal of the order of the learned CIT(A) shows that even though ample opportunities have been granted to the assessee, no details have been produced before the Appellate Authority.
3 -: Now, the assessee is seeking another opportunity. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that the assessee has failed to furnish any evidences in respect of the issues raised in the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of any evidence have been produced in the assessment proceedings, clearly the assessee could not have produced any evidence for consideration before the learned CIT(A). The behavior of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) has also been negligent. Now, however the learned Authorized Representative submits that the assessee will co- operate in the proceedings.
In the circumstances, considering the prayer of the learned Departmental Representative, punitive cost of an amount of Rs.50,000/- is levied on the assessee. The assessee shall pay the punitive cost of Rs.50,000/- within the next three months from the date of this order to the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund. Subject to the assessee paying the said punitive cost within the next three months, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the event the assessee does not pay the punitive cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund as directed above, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) would remain confirmed.
4 -: 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of with directions as mentioned above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th December, 2019 in Chennai.