MUDDAYYA AMARAYYA HIREMATH,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , YADGIR

ITA 1994/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 November 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee for the quantum appeals, remitting the issue back to the AO for de novo consideration. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271B, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling that penalty under this section cannot be levied if books of account are not maintained.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a contractor, failed to file income tax returns despite receiving substantial payments and having cash deposits. Notices were issued, but the assessee did not respond adequately, leading to ex-parte orders from the AO and CIT(A). The appeals also concerned penalties for not furnishing the audit report.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case, and whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable when books of account are not maintained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 271C,Section 271A,Section 271B,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 194C,Section 194A,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, AR
For Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 26.11.2024Pronounced: 28.11.2024

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member All these four appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate Order passed by the CIT(A). The ITA Nos.1993 and 1995/Bang/2024 are appeals against the quantum proceedings and ITA Nos.1994 and 1996/Bang/2024 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 are against the penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act, for not furnishing the audit report within the due date.

2.

The learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order as assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the CIT(A) and the issues raised before us are identical for both the Assessment Years. therefore, for the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →