V.K. MAHESWARI,DINDIGAL vs. ACIT NON CORP RANGE 2, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 520/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case, considering the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case, failing which the CIT(A) can proceed on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns a penalty of Rs. 11.50 Lacs levied under Section 271D for receiving sale consideration of immovable property in cash, violating Section 269SS. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) or the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D was rightly confirmed without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The need to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ �ायपीठ चे�ई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद4 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, �ाियक सद4 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt V.K. Maheswari ACIT, बनाम/ #68, AKMG Nagar, Karur Road, Non-Corporate Range-2 Vs. Dindigul-624 005. Madurai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFBPM-7361-N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-11-2023 confirming penalty of Rs.11.50 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO u/s.271D on 07-09-2022 on the allegation that the assessee received sale consideration on transfer of immovable property in cash in contravention to the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 30 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee. Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed for disposal of the appeal. 3. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to make any representation therein. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty in the absence of any explanation. Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 06-05-2024 DS आदेशकीNितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →