Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee purchased agricultural land which was wrongly classified as non-agricultural land, leading to a higher stamp duty valuation. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,58,595/- under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act due to non-compliance by the assessee. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and had a history of non-compliance. Despite this, considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 270A was justified, and whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-compliance, or be remitted for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
270A, 56(2), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi,vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058993881(1), dated 22.12.2023 passed against the penalty order by theAssessing Officer, National Faceless e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s.270A of the Income-tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 30.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2018-19.
Vasundhara Housing Corporation, AY 2018-19 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the NeAC, Delhi erred in levying a penalty of Rs 11,58,595/- u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act.”
At the outset, we note that none appeared before us to represent the assessee in the appeal filed by it. We perused the order of ld. CIT and note that it is an ex-parte order whereby appeal is dismissed due to non-compliant attitude of the assessee despite several opportunities granted for hearing on various dates as tabled in para 4.1 of the said order. Ld. CIT(A) has also taken note of the fact about sending notices for hearing on email ID given by the assessee both as primary and secondary email IDs on the e filing profile as well as the latest return filed by the assessee. Further, from the perusal of the penalty order u/s.270A by the ld. Assessing Officer, similar conduct of the assessee is observed in the penalty proceedings. Ld. Assessing Officer while imposing the penalty of Rs.11,58,595/- has noted that because there is no compliance by the assessee and the matter is time barring in nature, he had no option but to proceed with the imposition of penalty.
Having taken note of the above facts and observations, we are inclined to take up the matter for adjudication ex-parte qua the assessee with the assistance of ld. Sr.DR and by considering the material available on record. 5. In the statement of facts reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, it is stated that assessee had purchased agricultural land during the year which was wrongly classified as non-agricultural land at the time of registering the document with the sub-registrar which resulted into higher stamp duty valuation recorded as compared to the actual stamp duty valuation. Assessee had requested for the valuation of the said land by the valuation officer of the Department.
Vasundhara Housing Corporation, AY 2018-19 In this respect there is nothing stated so as to help us discern the final outcome of the request made for the valuation by the valuation officer. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs.74,99,000/- in this respect u/s. 56(2) of the Act. Assessee had moved rectification application u/s.154 before the ld. Assessing Officer in respect to the addition made. For want of disposal of this application, a request was made to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance. However, ld. Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings and imposed the penalty u/s.270A for which the assessee is inappeal before the Tribunal. Conduct of the assessee seems to be casual making all the compliances of filing the appeals at the appropriate forums which appears to be pseudo compliance in nature.
Despite the aforesaid habitual behaviour of the assessee at all the stages of various proceedings, considering the facts on record, we find it appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play to remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication. We direct the assessee, to be diligent in attending the hearings fixed for the appeal and assist in its expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should not seek adjournments unless warranted by compelling reasons.
Since the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication in terms of our observations made hereinabove, we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appellate procedure before the Ld. CIT(A). The observations herein made by us in remanding the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) will not impair or injure the case of the Revenue nor will it cause any prejudice to the defense/explanation of the assessee.
Vasundhara Housing Corporation, AY 2018-19 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 31 May, 2024
Sd/- Sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated: 31 May, 2024