PAWAN KUMAR GOEL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

First appeal is regarding the quantum appeal and the second appeal is regarding the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of which has been confirmed by the CIT(A).

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. It was further seen that the assessment order as well as orders of CIT(A) are exparte orders. I, therefore, proceed to decide both these appeals on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading of building material and general order supplier. He filed his return of income on 28.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,47,600/-. Since there was non compliance from the side of the assessee despite repeated opportunities granted, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.38,52,400/-. Thereafter the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,03,000/- u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

The assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A) against the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order as well as the penalty levied by him u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. However, since there was non appearance before him, Ld. CIT(A) in her separate exparte orders confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained the penalty levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the exparte order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer as well as the penalty so levied.

I have heard the arguments made by Ld. DR. A perusal of the orders of the authorities below show that there was no compliance from the side of assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) for which huge addition has been made by the Assessing Officer which has been sustained by the Page | 2 CIT(A). Even before the CIT(A) there was a delay of more than 3 months in filing of the appeal. Although the assessee explained the reason of delay in filing the appeal before him which was due to negligence of the previous counsel, however, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the same on the ground that no reasonable cause for delay in filing of the appeal has been given by the assessee. According to her the grounds of the assessee are casual in nature for which she did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as nonest.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and explain his case failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. The appeal filed by the assessee on account of quantum addition is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

So far as the penalty appeal is concerned since the quantum addition has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the penalty does not survive. However, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate afresh penalty proceedings after completion of the assessment in the set aside proceedings.

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Page | 3 Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2019.