SUMAIYA ENTERPRISE,BARPETA vs. ITO, WARD - BARPETA ROAD, BARPETA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 201/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: the Ld. Assessing Officer, nor any return of income was filed. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.1,15,71,000/- under Section 69A & 69C of the Act. 2.1 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed as he did not make any presentation with respect to opportunities given for hearing.3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that factual issues were not adequately addressed due to the assessee's non-attendance. Therefore, the quantum matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) was deleted, with the caveat that fresh penalty proceedings could be initiated if an addition is made during the re-assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was re-opened under Section 147/144 due to cash deposits and withdrawals, and the AO added Rs. 1,15,71,000/- under Section 69A & 69C as the assessee failed to file a return or submit explanations. The assessee did not attend hearings before the AO or the CIT(A), leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings and addition of income under Sections 69A/69C were justified, and if the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) was valid, especially when the assessee failed to attend hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Appearances by: Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 26.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 06.03.2025

ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This is a batch of 2 appeals pertaining to the same assessee. challenges the levy of penalty under Section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”). For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are being disposed of through a single order.

(quantum) is being taken as the lead case.

& 202/GTY/2024 Sumaiya Enterprise (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 29.02.2024. This order itself is on the order passed under Section 147/144 of the Act, dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Ld. AO, in an exparte manner. It is seen that the assessee had made a number of cash deposits and withdrawals on account of which his case was re-opened. Admittedly, there was no explanation submitted before the Ld. Assessing Officer, nor any return of income was filed. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs. 1,15,71,000/- under Section 69A & 69C of the Act.

2.1 It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not succeed as he did not make any presentation with respect to opportunities given for hearing.

3.

Aggrieved with the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal, with the following grounds:

“1. For that the learned A.O. has erred in law as well as in facts while framing assessment order.

2.

For that the learned A.O. is not justified in initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of I.T. Act, 1961.

3. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs. 1,15,71,000/- u/s 69C & 69A of I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of whole amount of cash deposits and cash withdrawals ignoring all reasons of taxation.

4. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds at the time of hearing of Appeal.” 3.1 On the last date of hearing, none attended on behalf of the assessee. However, it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR.

4.

It is seen that before both of the authorities below, the assessee has not attended to the notices for hearing and therefore, has suffered exparte orders at both of the levels. In light of this fact, it is evident that factual issues have not been thrashed out at the level of Ld. Assessing Officer or even the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned & 202/GTY/2024 Sumaiya Enterprise order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, after giving an opportunity of being heard. We may caution the assessee that he must avail of the opportunities to present the facts before the Ld. Assessing Officer so that his correct income can be assessed.

4.1 With the decision in quantum matter for remanding back to the Ld. Assessing Officer, it is clear that the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) of the Act cannot survive, hence, the same is deleted. However, in case, at the stage of Ld. Assessing Officer if some addition is made under any section of the Act whatsoever then he would be free to initiate penalty proceedings under the appropriation sections of the Act.

Order pronounced in the court on 06.03.2025

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →