Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against two orders of the CIT(A) concerning penalties under Section 271A and 271B for AY 2011-12. The assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A), and their claims were rejected on merits. The assessee sought an opportunity to contest the case before the CIT(A) due to non-availability of certain documents during the earlier proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and had failed to produce necessary documents. However, considering the assessee's plea, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to contest the penalty proceedings before the CIT(A) after being ex-parte in the earlier proceedings.
Sections Cited
271A, 271B, 44AA, 44AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR
Before: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAINvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.. 415 & 416/JP/2024
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against two different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-02-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 in the matter of Section 271A and 271B of the Act respectively, raising ground of appeal
as mentioned at Form No. 36 in respective appeals. 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeals, it is noticed that the assessee was ex- parte before the ld. CIT(A) in respect of both the appeals i.e. Section 271A and 2. M/S. AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR 271B of the Act. It is further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals of the assessee has rejected the claims of the assessee on merit in view of the materials available before him. The narration as made by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the above appeals are as under:- ‘’Appeal u/s 271A ‘’5.6 Keeping in view the facts of the case, the decision of CIT(A) in quantum appeal order dated 19.01.2024 upholding that the appellant was engaged in business activities of construction and development of real estate and had Business receipts of Rs. 69,31,000 during the year chargeable under the head Profits & Gains tom Business & Profession', and the provisions of Sec 44AA coupled with Sec 44AB, and the fact that the appellant had failed to keep, maintain and retain regular books of account despite having Income from business as required within the meaning of Sec 44AA of the Act as no books could be produced by the appellant-neither during assessment nor during penalty nor during appeal proceedings, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO in levying Penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A of the Act and the penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed is hereby upheld. Consequently, the ground of appeal no. 1,2 and 3 are hereby dismissed.’’ ‘’Appeal u/s 271B ‘’5.5 Keeping in view the facts of the case, the decision of CIT (A) in quantum appeal order dated 19.01.2024
3. ITA NO. 415/JP/2024 M/S. AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR upholding that the appellant was engaged in business activities of construction and development of real estate and had Business receipts of Rs. 69,31,000 during the year chargeable under the head 'Profits & Gains from Business & Profession', further decision of the CIT(A) in appeal against penalty order u/s 271A vide order u/s 250 dated 15.02.2024 confirming that the appellant was liable to maintain regular books of accounts u/s 44AA, the provisions of Sec 44AB, the above discussed judicial pronouncements which are squarely applicable in the instant case, and the fact that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Sec 44AB of the Act, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO in levying Penalty of Rs.34,655/- u/s 271B of the Act and, therefore, the penalty of Rs.34,655/- Imposed is hereby upheld. Consequently, the grounds of appeal no 1, 2 and 3 are hereby dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he could not argue the case before the ld. CIT(A) for want of following documents.
Certified copy of order sheet beginning of this case for approval for notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Certified copy of the covering letter alongwith proposal sent to higher authority to get approval u/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Certified copy of the covering letter alongwith approval granted by higher authority u/s 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4 M/S. AGGARWAL ASSOCIATES VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR Hence, the assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) in connection with both the appeals. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 2.4 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders in respect of appeals of Section 271A and 271B for which the ld. AR of the assessee prayed for one more chance to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) while as the ld. DR relied on the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The Bench feels that one more chance may be given to the Assessee to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and the assessee will submit the necessary documents / evidences concerning the above mentioned appeals. Hence the appeals of the assessee are restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings and the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 2.3 Before parting, the Bench makes it clear that its decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.