Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271E against the assessee for making a cash repayment of a loan amounting to Rs. 3,31,382/- in contravention of Section 269T of the Act. The assessee failed to respond to multiple notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty, dismissing the assessee's appeal ex parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a significant delay in filing the appeal and had consistently ignored notices from both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority. While acknowledging the assessee's unresponsiveness, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to provide one last opportunity.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee is valid, despite the assessee's non-compliance with notices.
Sections Cited
269T, 271E, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
ORDER
Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 28.12.2013 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10223638 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals), confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271E in contravention of section 269T of the Act.
Brief facts state that the Assessing Officer, having received information that the assessee had made repayment of loan in cash to the tune of Rs. 3,31,382/- vide contra entry dated 07.01.2013 in contravention of section 269T of the Act, initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271E of the Act. Various notices issued to the assessee remained un-responded on his behalf. Therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 3,31,382/- vide order dated 15.03.2022 u/s. 271E of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed penalty order passed by Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s appeal ex parte.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was placed on record, which was rejected. We have perused the records and heard the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue who supported the impugned order.
At the very outset, we notice that there is 108 days’ delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay.
It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by the learned Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings. We further notice that the assessee also did not respond to the notices issued by the first appellate authority on various occasions. The grounds raised before us reveal that the main grievance of the appellant/assessee is that the impugned order has been passed ex parte without affording him reasonable opportunity. It is, however, noticed 2 | P a g e that learned CIT(Appeals) seems to have condoned the delay by implication and passed ex-parte impugned order. The irresponsive conduct of the assessee can not be appreciated who turned a deaf ear to the various notices issued by the first appellate authority. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits. We order accordingly. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(Appeals) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable reasons. Needless to say that learned CIT(Appeals) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dt. 28.12.2013 is set aside.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.04.2025.