Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed penalties imposed under section 271F and 271B for AY 2013-14. The first appellate authority refused to admit the appeals due to an 18-month delay. The quantum assessment from which these penalties arose was previously set aside by the Tribunal for re-adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment was set aside, requiring re-adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeals were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of a revised assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty appeals should be admitted despite the delay, given that the underlying assessment was set aside for re-adjudication.
Sections Cited
271F, 271B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AGRA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty of Rs.5000/- u/s 271F for non- filing of return of income and another penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B for failure to get the accounts audited for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14, the assessee has preferred the captioned appeals. The first appellate authority has refused to admit the appeals for want of condonation of delay of 18 months vide impugned orders dated 07-08-2024. Another fact brought on record is that the quantum assessment from which the aforesaid penalties emanate has already been set aside by Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication vide order dated 07-02-2025, a copy of which is on record.
Since the assessment has already been set aside by Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for re-adjudication, both these penalty appeals also stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration in the light of fresh assessment framed against the assessee. 3. Both the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th February, 2025.