Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.36,41,491/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee challenged this before the Ld. Commissioner but made no compliance despite opportunities. The Ld. Commissioner rejected the appeal as non-admissible due to delay and lack of statutory requirements.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Assessee remained un-represented before the Ld. Commissioner, and the failure to file a condonation petition was due to the death of their previous tax consultant. Considering the peculiar facts, the Tribunal decided to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Ld. Commissioner, considering the death of their tax consultant led to non-compliance.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250, 249
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.06.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2010-11.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 28.03.2016 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has levied a penalty of Rs.36,41,491/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the income of Rs.1,17,84,759/-. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however, in spite of affording various opportunities by issuing notices/letters dated 19.04.2024, 01.05.2024, 22.05.2024 and 11.06.2024 by the Ld. Commissioner, made no compliance. Therefore the Ld. Commissioner by observing “that there was a delay in filing the appeal before him, he vide notice dated 11.06.2024 has asked the Assessee to file his explanation regarding delay in filing the appeal with any condonation petition but no compliance is received from the Assessee till date. Since the Assessee has filed the appeal in contravention of section 249 of the Act and unable to state sufficient cause for not presenting his appeal along with statutory requirements”, treated the appeal of the Assessee as non-admissible and consequently rejected the same.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The Assessee at the outset has submitted that the previous tax consultant of the Assessee has died unfortunately therefore, the case before the Ld. Commissioner remained un-represented, hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in entirety and taking a lenient view for the ends of substantial justice an opportunity may be given to the Assessee by remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we observe that the Assessee remained un-represented before the Ld. Commissioner and in spite of giving opportunity specifically for filing a condonation petition, the Assessee failed to do so because of the death of his previous tax consultant. By considering the statement of Ld. Counsel Ms. Dinkle H. Hariya at bar as correct and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and for just decision of the case and for the substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Commissioner and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner with a direction to afford an opportunity to the Assessee for filing the condonation of application and for substantiation of his claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2024.