Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee faced penalties under Section 271D for accepting cash exceeding prescribed limits for the sale of land and immovable property, violating Section 269SS. The appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed ex-parte as the assessee's former counsel failed to communicate hearing notices, leading to a significant delay (over 400 days) in filing appeals before the ITAT.
Held
The tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but allowing the appeals in the interest of justice, albeit with a token cost of Rs. 5,000. Both appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to submit explanations and evidence and cooperate fully. The tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the penalty itself.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before ITAT. 2. Validity of penalty under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. 3. Right to be heard and non-receipt of hearing notices during appellate proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 271D, Section 269SS, Section 282
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
It is further submitted that in one case the order of the Ld first appellate authority was passed on 26/10/2023, and in another case the order is passed on 30/01/2024, sustaining penalty u/s 271D amounting to Rs. 8.42 lakhs and Rs. 29.75 lakhs, respectively, for two separate defaults, in violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act 61, and in neither of the case, notices of hearing has never been received by the assessee from the office of the Ld. first appellate authority and consequently, no copy of appeal orders has been served on the assessee and he was totally unaware of the existence of the appeal orders. Subsequently, on gathering information of the disposal of appeal order he appointed a new counsel who guided in filing these appeals for condoning the delay and for admission of the appeals for hearing on merits.
The Ld. DR raised objection considering the length of the delay and submitted that the appointed counsel Mr. Jatin Dhingra is the person appointed by the assessee himself and if the said counsel fails in his professional duties , the responsibility lies with the assessee and it was also the duty of the assessee to pursue the matter with his appointed counsel, during the pendency of appeal matters and there is no confirmation or any communication from his earlier appointed counsel , regarding his unavailability and there is no proof , that information of hearing dates or appeal orders , has not been communicated by the counsel to the assessee and as such the liability of the assessee cannot be wiped off .
After considering the submission we find that the assessee cannot simply wriggle out of his own responsibility because the counsel is appointed by the assessee himself and there is nothing on record to absolve the assessee from his own liability.
However, in the interest of justice we condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the tribunal which is more than four hundred days (each) and admit the same for hearing on merits, but at the same time we are of the opinion that the assessee has acted in very negligent manner and we impose token costs on the assessee amounting to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) to be paid to the credit of the Prime Ministers be produced before JAO).
Brief facts emerging from records are that the assesse individual has accepted cash on two different occasions amounting to Rs. 8,42,000/- against sale of land vide registered deed dated 7th March, 2017, and cash amounting to Rs. 29,75,000/- against sale of immovable property on 13th May, 2016 (as per details contained in the penalty orders) thereby violating the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, on both occasions, against which penalty u/s 271D has been imposed by the Additional CIT-Range NFAC), which was carried in appeal before the Ld. First appellate authority NFAC, and in absence of any representation or any response , before the first appellate authority by the assessee or his Ld. AR on four different dates ( as apparent from the appellate orders), the appeal has been dismissed exparte , without adjudication on merits of the case.
The assessee has taken two grounds in appeal challenging the penalty on merits and also on the ground of non-availability of hearing opportunity.
In course of hearing the Ld. of the assessee, retreated the same arguments that no notice of hearing has been received by the assessee because of non-cooperation of his previous counsel and all notices might have been served on the counsel and the documentary evidences before the Ld CIT (A), and prayed for remanding the matter.
The Ld. DR has no objection.
We have considered the rival submissions and materials on record , and we find that the assessee has filed his written submissions and arguments before the lower authority Ld JCIT ( NFAC ) as evident from the penalty order dated 15/03/2022, but the same has not been considered by the Ld CIT(A) in course of appellate proceedings on merits , because in course of appellate proceedings no submissions has been filed by the assessee , probably for non-receipt of hearing notice , as stated above.
As such in the interest of justice we remand both the appeals, back to the Ld first appellate authority, for adjudication on all the grounds contained in form 35 on merits and we direct the assessee to file submissions and explanations along with documentary evidences in support of his contention in both the appeal matters and to fully cooperate in appellate proceedings.
Notice to be issued as per provisions of section 282 of the Act 61 and also in email id of the present counsel pnarora355@yahoo.in .
We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open.
Order pronounced in open court as on 18.12.2025