JITENDRA SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 239/Ran/2023 (Assessment Year-2015-16) (Virtual Hearing) Jitendra Singh, DCIT/ACIT, Amargil Bhawan, New Kalimati Road, Circle-2, Vs. Sakchi, Jamshedpur. Jamshedpur. PAN No. AVYPS 6784 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR Date of hearing 27/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/03/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by the appellant is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/ learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 13/12/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015- 16. In this appeal, the appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the initiation of penalty proceedings vide notice dated 19/12/2017 is bad in law to the extent that the relevant portion or the reasons for initiation of penalty has not been specified. Notice issued U/s 274 read with section 271 is vague and as such, initiation of proceedings is ab initio void. 2. For that the penalty of ₹ 4,07,070/- has been imposed against the total addition made for ₹ 13,17,380/- which was made during the assessment proceedings, however, the fact remains that the addition made stands reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/- in total and as such, the impugned penalty order is uncalled for. 3. For that the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 03/03/2020 has estimated the addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- as against ₹ 13,17,380/- which was made during the assessment proceedings on which the AO has imposed this impugned penalty. Anyhow, as the case may be, since the income has been modified, this penalty order is bad in law. 4. For that in any view of the case, since now the addition made/income assessed stands to be completed on estimate basis no penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is called for. 5. For that the other grounds in detail shall be argued at the time of hearing."

ITA No. 239/Ran/2023 Jitendra Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the appellant submits that the Assessing Officer, while passing the assessment order, made addition of ₹ 11,32,165/- on account of unexplained creditors, ₹ 1,85,215/- as bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appellant could not make any compliance due to unavoidable reasons and thus, the assessee prayed to give one more opportunity to explain and the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A). No proper and reasonable opportunities were provided to the assessee and the appeal of assessee was dismissed by passing ex parte order. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR) for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and stated that sufficient opportunities have already been provided to the assessee as evident from the order of the ld. CIT(A) in para 7 of his order. Thus, the assessee does not deserve any leniency and penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer may be upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order as the assessee did not substantiate the various grounds of appeals raised before ld. CIT(A) despite the fact that several notices were issued and served on the assessee. Though, it is a fact that there was no compliance on the part of the appellant, the facts remain that the income tax laws are within the ambit of welfare legislation which are absolutely separate from penal legislation and therefore, given the facts and 2

ITA No. 239/Ran/2023 Jitendra Singh Vs DCIT/ACIT circumstances and as per applicable law, benefit of doubt has to be attributed to the assessee/tax payer. There may be circumstances beyond the control of assessee or "vis major" because of which the assessee may not have able to comply with the notices before the revenue authorities. Under the given facts on record, which cannot be said that such non-compliance was deliberate or malafide on the part of assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeals afresh in accordance with law. Needless to direct that before passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity and not to cause further delay and seek adjournment without any valid reasons and to furnish all the details and evidences to justify various grounds of appeal raised by him. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, both these appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 27th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi, Dated: 29/04/2025 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi