Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee firm, M/s. Mani Polybags, filed their return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.35,420/-. The assessment was completed at Rs.12,51,808/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,87,932/-.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with the CIT(A)'s notices but, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to represent their case. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) with a direction for cooperation and no unnecessary adjournment.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) after failing to respond to multiple notices.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 270A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश /O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 23.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,420/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 07.12.2019 estimating total income at Rs.12,51,808/-. The assessee did not file appeal against the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the entire demand raised was paid. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act. The AO imposed penalty u/s.270A of the Act on 17.03.2020 amounting to Rs.1,87,932/-.
Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty u/s.270A of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued four notices directing the assessee to furnish details / submissions, which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty u/s.270A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,87,932/-, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld.AR on merits submitted that CIT(A) has not examined the details of additions made by AO in the assessment order. It was submitted that the additions made will not come under the purview of underreporting. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority remained non-compliant since the hearing notices were never received in physical form to the assessee’s address. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee firm may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and prayed for restoring the issue raised in this appeal to the files of the CIT(A).
5. The ld.DR supported the order of the AO imposing penalty and the CIT(A) order confirming the same.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices. However, the same was not complied by the assessee firm. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, the issues raised in CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai.