Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIAAND SHRI LALIET KUMAR
Date of hearing : 16.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH; All these appeals are filed by the assessee i.e. Shri Gopal S. Pandith for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act and by the same assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of the IT , 1085, 1090 to 1097 & 1060/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 3 Act and one remaining appeal is filed by a different but connected assessee Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith for Assessment Year2007-08 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
In all these eleven appeals, the ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is identical which reads as under. “The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held the order of penalty is barred by limitation.”
It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that this issue was raised before CIT (A) also that penalty order passed by the AO in all these cases is barred by limitation but this aspect has not been decided by ld. CIT (A) and therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after deciding this technical aspect. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per his order dated 11.03.2015, the ld. CIT(A) has decided five appeals in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act and two appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of IT Act in the case of the assessee Shri Gopal S. Pandith. In this order, there is no finding of CIT (A) regarding this time barring aspect. Remaining three appeals in the case of Shri Gopal S. Pandith out of which one appeal is regarding penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the remaining two appeals are in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of the IT Act for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and one appeal in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith for Assessment Year 2007-08 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act was decided by CIT(A) as per his order dated 11.03.2015 and in this order also, there is no decision regarding time barring aspect. As per the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A), it is seen that in all these eleven appeals, the time barring aspect was raised by the assessee as per ground no. 1 of the appeals in all these appeals which is not , 1085, 1090 to 1097 & 1060/Bang/2015 Page 3 of 3 decided by CIT(A). Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision. The ld. CIT (A) should decide this technical aspect as to whether the penalty orders passed by the AO is time barred or not and after deciding this technical aspect, if it is found by ld. CIT (A) that penalty order is not time barred, he should decide the issue on merit afresh and if it is found that the penalty orders are time barred then nothing remains to be decided. We want to make it clear that sufficient opportunity of being heard should be provided to both sides and learned CIT (A) should pass a reasoned and speaking order.
In the result, all the eleven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.