MR. B. MURULIKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2141/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2017AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the AO had issued notices, the assessee, having meager income, should be given one more opportunity to establish reasonable cause for accepting cash loans under Section 273B. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 133,400 imposed under Section 271D. The assessee raised objections regarding the penalty order being time-barred and inadequate opportunity of being heard by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order under Section 271D was time-barred and if the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to be heard by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 275(1)(c),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Prasanth, C. A
For Respondent: Shri B. R. Ramesh, JCIT DR

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A. M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee and this is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 6, Bangalore dated 05.08.2016 for A. Y. 2008 – 09.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 11 grounds but the only grievance of the assessee is about penalty of Rs. 133,400/- imposed u/s 271D. There are two technical objections. First such objection is this that the penalty order is time barred u/s 275 (1) (c) of I T Act. Second such objection is this that the AO has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that although various grounds are raised but if the matter is restored to AO for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard, the assessee will be satisfied and in the set aside proceedings, he will raise all issues. Learned DR of the revenue submitted that three opportunities were provided by the AO but were not availed by the assessee and therefore, the assessee does not deserve any further opportunity.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that no doubt, three notices were issued by the A.O. on 23.08.2012, 11.01.2013 and 12.02.2013 and served on the assessee as noted by the AO on page 2 of the penalty order and there was no compliance by the assessee. But the assessee is an individual having meager income of Rs. 727,430/- in the present year as per return of income as noted in the assessment order. The assessed income is Rs. 974,430/-. Therefore, we feel that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to establish that there was reasonable cause for accepting cash loan as provided in section 273B and no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if such an opportunity is provided. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter to A.O. for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard. We do not make any comment on merit or time barring aspect and all aspects are open before the A.O.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →