PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs. ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL

PDF
ITA 302/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 April 2024AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)7 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CA & AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.04.2024Pronounced: 30.04.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench:

The captioned three appeals are filed by same assessee, the details are as under:

(i) ITA No. 300/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arise out of assessment-order dated 26.03.2015 passed by ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Page 1 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

[“AO”] u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

[“the Act”].

(ii) ITA No. 301/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated

26.04.2023 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order

dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

(iii) ITA No. 302/Ind/2023 is directed against appeal-order dated

15.09.2022 passed CIT(A) which in turn arise out of penalty-order

dated 28.09.2015 passed by AO u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

2.

Since these appeals relate to same assessee and the issued involved

are inter-related, they were heard together at the request of parties and are

being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience,

brevity and clarity.

3.

The registry has informed that the there is a delay of 46 days in first

two appeals and 269 days in third appeal, therefore all three appeals are

time-barred. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an

application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp, the

same is scanned and re-produced below:

Page 2 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

Page 3 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

4.

Drawing our attention to the averments made by assessee, Ld. AR

submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen. The assessee’s business had

closed and there is no source of income. The assessee is suffering from high

blood pressure and heart disease, copies of medical reports/prescriptions of

various dates and doctors are filed at Page 1-39 of Paper-Book. The assessee

also met a serious road accident in the year 2021. The assessee’s daughter

also got divorced and the legal battle is going since the year 2019. The

assessee’s twin brothers also expired in the year 2020. This way, the

assessee had been passing through an extremely difficult phase of life. In

assessee’s words, he is facing a ‘merciful’ state. Therefore, due to such

onerous circumstances, the assessee could not make statutory compliances.

Ld. AR submitted that there is no deliberate lethargy, negligence, mala fide

intention or ulterior motive of assessee in making delay and the assessee

does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He prayed with folded

hands that the sole reason of delay is the onerous circumstances only,

therefore a liberal approach be taken and delay be condoned to meet the end

of justice. Ld. DR for Revenue was fair enough in not raising any objection

against assessee’s prayer and left the matter to the wisdom of Bench. We

have considered the explanation advanced by assessee and in absence of

any contrary fact or material on record, the assessee is found to have a

‘sufficient cause’ for delay in filing present appeals. We find that section

253(5) of the Act empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after expiry of

prescribed time, if there is a sufficient cause for not presenting appeal

Page 4 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

within prescribed time. It is also a settled position by Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR

1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 that whenever substantial justice and technical

considerations are opposed to each other, the cause of substantial justice

must be preferred by adopting a justice-oriented approach. Thus, taking into

account the provision of section 253(5) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court, we take a judicious view, condone delay, admit appeal and proceed

with hearing.

5.

Briefly stated, the background facts leading to present appeals are

such that the AO, on the basis of AIR information revealing that the

assessee had made cash-deposits in bank a/c, issued notice u/s 148 dated

28.02.2014 to initiate proceeding u/s 147 of the Act. The notice issued by

AO u/s 148 as well as subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) from time to

time remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO framed

assessment u/s 144 vide assessment-order dated 26.03.2015 determining

total income at Rs. 35,02,709/- consisting solely of the addition u/s 68 on

account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c. The AO also initiated penalty

proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income as well as u/s

271(1)(b) for non-compliances of notices u/s 142(1). Ultimately, vide order

dated 28.09.2015, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- u/s 271(1)(c)

qua the impugned addition of Rs. 35,02,709/- made in assessment-order.

Further, the AO, vide a separate order dated 28.09.2015, imposed penalty of

Rs. 40,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliances of notices u/s 142(1).

Page 5 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

Against assessment-order as well as both penalty-orders as aforesaid, the

assessee went in three separate appeals to CIT(A) but could not prosecute

on the dates of hearing fixed by CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed those

appeals for non-prosecution. Now, the assessee has come in captioned

appeals before us assailing the orders of lower authorities.

6.

During hearing, it transpired that all three original orders by AO as

well as the orders of first-appeals by CIT(A) have been passed ex-parte due to

non-representation by assessee. It further emerged (i) that the AO has made

addition in assessment-order in absence of details by assessee; (ii) the

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is linked with the outcome of assessment; and (iii) the

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is also linked with compliances by assessee during

assessment-proceeding. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that considering

assessee’s advanced age and extremely difficult state of life, it would be most

appropriate to restore these matters back to AO for adjudication afresh in

accordance with law after considering assessee’s representation. He further

acknowledged that the assessee will co-operate the AO and ensure adequate

representation. Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the proposal of Ld. AR. In

view of these submissions of parties and to afford substantial justice to

assessee, we are agreeable to the prayer made before us. Accordingly, we

remit all three matters to AO for consideration afresh after giving necessary

opportunities to assessee. Needless to mention that the AO shall take a

proper view in accordance with law after considering assessee’s

representation without being influenced by his previous orders. The

Page 6 of 7

Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, Bhopal ITA Nos. 300 to 302/Ind/2023 AYs. 2007-08

assessee is also directed to make adequate representation before AO failing

which the AO shall be at liberty to pass orders as thought fit.

7.

Resultantly, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 30.04.2024

Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Indore िदनांक / Dated : 30.04.2024 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 7 of 7

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BHOPAL vs ITO-WARD-3(1), BHOPAL | BharatTax