C.DHANASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2654/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 July 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the penalty appeal back to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the pending appeal on the quantum of addition. This was done because the assessee claimed the case was not properly represented initially and now has supporting materials.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an addition of Rs. 29,61,000/- for unexplained investments and a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal against the penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be decided separately or remitted to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the pending quantum appeal, considering the assessee's claim of lack of proper representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 24.07.2019Pronounced: 30.07.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in dated 29.06.2018, against the penalty order passed U/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

There is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal. The assessee filed an affidavit submitting that he was out of station to attend his

Paramagudi and hence there was a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal which is neither willful nor wanton, but mainly due to the pressing demands on attending his ailing mother. We heard the rival submissions and on merit condone the delay.

3.

Shri C. Dhanasekaran, the assessee, an individual did not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore the Assessing Officer passed an order U/s.144 making an addition of Rs.29,61,000/- towards unexplained investments U/s.69. Thereafter, he initiated penalty proceedings U/s.271(1)(c). Since the assessee did not represent the case, he levied penalty U/s.271(1)(c) also. Meanwhile, the assessee filed an application U/s. 264 before the PCIT-9, Chennai. The PCIT refrained from entertaining the assessee’s petition U/s.264 and observed that the assessee is free to file an appeal before the appellate commissioner of Income Tax, if he wishes so, as per the procedure laid down in the statutes. The appeal filed against the quantum issues are stated to be pending before the CIT(A). The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order before the CIT(A). On dismissal, the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

The Ld.AR pleaded that since the case was not properly represented, the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee has collected proper materials to prove that the addition made U/s.144 is not warranted. Since the quantum appeal is pending before the Ld.CIT(A), it is pleaded that this appeal may also be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide this case along with the quantum appeal. We heard the Ld.DR.

5.

We heard the rival submissions. Since the quantum appeal is pending before the Ld.CIT(A), we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) to decide both the quantum as well as penalty appeals together.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the court on the 30th July, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →