Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A) confirming a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty stemmed from an assessment order and penalty order initially passed against a company, M/s. Nagjee Memorial Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., in which the assessee was a director.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessment and penalty orders were passed against a company, while the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order against the individual assessee. The CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits, nor was it clear if the assessee raised the issue of the order being passed in the wrong name before the first appellate authority.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty order and subsequent CIT(A) order were passed against the correct person, i.e., the individual assessee or the company?
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250, 144, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11.
The assessee has filed written submission dated 05.05.2024 and based on the same we hereby dispose off the case by hearing the learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) and by perusing the materials available on record.
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is said to have been filed his return of income regularly with PAN No. AHCPG1082D. The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed u/s. 250 of the Act where the penalty u/s. confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18.10.2023.
The assessee aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) has filed this present appeal before us.
We have heard the learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) and perused the materials available on record. It is observed from the written submission that the contention of the assessee is that there has neither been any assessment order nor a penalty order for the impugned order in the name of the assessee. The assessee being surprised by the penalty order is said to have approached the ld. A.O., i.e., DCIT-1(2) for clarifying as to what was the basis for the impugned penalty order. It is further observed that the impugned penalty order arises out of the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 and the order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.06.2018 in the name of M/s. Nagjee Memorial Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. bearing PAN No. AAAN9300R in which the assessee is said to be one of the director. The assessee further contends that the assessee is an individual and M/s. Nagjee Memorial Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. is a company which are two different legal entities holding different PAN. It was further submitted that the original assessment order and the penalty order was in the name of the company and not the assessee. The assessee alleged that there was mistake apparent from the record of the original penalty order which was passed in the wrong name. The assessee prayed that the penalty order by quashed on this ground of illegality.
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) had nothing to controvert the facts of the case, but rather raised an argument that the assessee was non of the ld. CIT(A).
In the above factual matrix of the case, it is observed that the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 passed u/s. 144 r.ws. 147 of the Act in the name of M/s. Nagjee Memorial Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. bearing PAN: AAACN9300R and the penalty order dated 29.06.2018 bearing PAN : AAAN9300R were passed in the name of the company namely M/s. Nagjee Memorial Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. now known as Lifeline Hospital and Medical Research Centre (India) Pvt. Ltd. where penalty amounting to Rs.12,65,157/- was levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.40,94,361/-.
The ld. CIT(A) had then passed the ex parte order in the name of the present assessee, confirming the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. for the reason that the assessee has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceeding. On considering the rival contentions, it is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on the merits of the case and it does not emanate from the order of the ld. CIT(A) whether or not the assessee has raised before the first appellate authority the issue of passing of the order in the name of wrong person. We, therefore, are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) providing the assessee one more opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority and to raise all the relevant issues required for proper adjudication. Hence, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue on the merits of the case and the assessee to co-operate in the appellate proceeding.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.22024