MANJU ROY,MALDA vs. A.C.I.T.,RANGE-3, MALDA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who is carrying on the agency business of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by her on 25.03.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 10,16,420/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has received loans from her close relatives during the year under consideration aggregating as under: “i. Ardhendu Bikash Roy Rs. 15,25,000/- ii. Arindam Roy Rs. 20,00,000/- iii. Punu Roy Rs. 4,00,000/- Rs. 8,50,000/-” iv. Maitrayee Roy Since the above loans were received by the assessee in cash exceeding the sums of Rs. 20,000/- and even the same were also repaid entirely in cash during the year under consideration in the sums exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961, penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E were initiated by the AO. The explanation offered by the assessee in this regard, in response to the show cause notices issued during the course of the said penalty proceedings was not found acceptable by the AO. He, therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 47,75,000/- each u/s 271D & 271E for the loans taken and repaid in cash in the sums exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T respectively.

The penalties imposed by the AO u/s 271D & 271E were challenged by the assessee in the appeals filed by the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeals for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee vide his appellate orders dated 23.01.2019 passed ex-parte thereby confirming the penalties imposed by the AO u/s 271D & 271E of the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that Advocate Shri Ashim Kumar Choudhury was appointed by the assessee as her Authorised Representative to 3 & 995/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Manju Roy represent the case before the Assessing Officer during the course of penalty proceedings as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings. He has submitted that the mother of Shri Ashim Kumar Choudhury, however was seriously ill during the relevant period and due to this reason, he could not properly represent the case of the assessee either before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings and before the ld. CIT(A) during course of appellate proceedings. He has submitted that the assessee is an old lady and urged that one more opportunity may be given to her to putforth the case on merit by sending the matter back to the AO. Keeping in view the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, I consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the assessee to putforth her case properly on merit. Even the ld. DR has not raised any objection for sending the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) ex-parte are accordingly set aside and the matters relating to the imposition of penalty u/s 271D & 271E of the Act are restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th December, 2019.