BHUWNESHWAR SINGH MARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO 1(1), BHOPAL
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
आदेश / O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned ITO-1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(b) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal.
Page 1 of 4
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 331/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08
We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused
the case record including the orders of lower-authorities.
The AO has imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- for non-compliances of
four notices issued by him u/s 142(1) during assessment-proceeding on
25.06.2014, 27.08.2014, 16.01.2015 and 03.02.2015 @ Rs. 10,000/- for
failure to comply with each notice. Even the AO has passed penalty-order
ex-parte assessee due to non-representation by assessee in response to the
notice issued by AO affording opportunity before imposing penalty.
During first-appeal before CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the
impugned four notices u/s 142(1) were never served upon him. Taking into
account assessee’s claim, the CIT(A) sought remand report from AO in
response to which the AO filed remand-report. Then, the CIT(A) forwarded
remand-report to assessee for filing his rejoinder but the assessee sought
adjournment. The CIT(A) thereafter dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by
passing following order:
“5. The Remand Report furnished by the AO was forwarded to the appellant to furnish his Rejoinder vide letter dated 27.12.2023. However, the appellant has only sought adjournment of 15 days. The AO issued several notices and responded to the remand report that none of the notices were returned back. When this report was given to the appellant, he has not furnished his Rejoinder. Hence, it is assumed that the appellant is not keen to pursue his appeal. 6. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Thus, the CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first-appeal for want of
submission by assessee to the remand-report of AO.
Page 2 of 4
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 331/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08
It is also noteworthy that the AO originally passed assessment-order
dated 26.02.2015 u/s 144/147 for the reason of non-compliances by
assessee to the notice u/s 148 and above mentioned four notices u/s 142(1)
and the assessee filed first-appeal belatedly to CIT(A) against such
assessment-order. The assessee claimed before CIT(A) that neither notices
u/s 148/142(1) nor the assessment-order was served upon him which has
resulted in delayed filing of appeal before him but the CIT(A) did not accept
assessee’s claim and dismissed appeal for the reason of delayed filing.
Therefore, the assessee filed next appeal to ITAT against the order of CIT(A)
which was registered by ITAT as ITA No. 186/Ind/2024 and has already
been disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2024 wherein the ITAT has restored
matter to CIT(A) to re-visit claim of assessee and adjudicate afresh.
Therefore, taking into account the fact that the CIT(A) has passed
impugned order dated 15.02.2024 being assailed in present appeal ex-parte
assessee for non-submission of rejoinder to the remand-report filed by AO
and also that the ITAT has already restored assessee’s first-appeal against
original assessment-order to CIT(A) vide aforesaid order dated 26.07.2024,
the present matter is also restored back to CIT(A) for giving one more
opportunity to assessee to file rejoinder and thereafter pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file his
rejoinder as required by CIT(A) and other submission, if any, which shall be
Page 3 of 4
Shri Bhuwaneshwar Singh Maran, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal ITA No. 331/Ind/2024 - AY 2007-08
considered judiciously by CIT(A) without being influenced by his earlier
orders in any manner.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.09.2024
Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore िदनांक /Dated : 27.09.2024 CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 4 of 4
