RAM PRASAD SOODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VISAKHAPATNAM

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057980257(1) dated 16.11.2023

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y.2014-15 on 29.01.2015 admitting total taxable income of Rs.24,53,580/-. Assessment in the case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO), assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.78,14,319/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty at Rs.10,97,703/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds of appeal:

The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and provisions of law.

For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is submitted that the Order of the lower authorities be set aside or modified as may be deemed fit. 5. The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without considering the facts submitted by the assessee during the penalty proceedings and appellate proceedings, which is against the cardinal principle of natural justice. Referring to para 6 of the penalty order, the Ld.AR submitted that the AO has mentioned that the assessee was directed to submit his reply by 10.01.2022. The assessee has neither submitted his reply nor has requested for adjournment to the show cause dated 04.01.2022 till date. In absence of any reply from the assessee it is presumed that the assessee has no further explanation / submission The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars nor concealed income to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity before the Ld.CIT(A) to substantiate his claim with material evidences in the interest of justice.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that as evident from the orders of the revenue authorities, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities, but the assessee did not avail the same to controvert the findings of the revenue authorities with cogent material evidences. The Ld.DR therefore submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in upholding the penalty made by the AO. She, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is evident that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed and the penalty of Rs.10,97,703/- levied by the AO was upheld by the Ld.CIT(A). The only contention of the Ld.AR is that the revenue authorities are not justified in levying penalty, without considering the submissions of the assessee vide his reply dated 12.04.2021 and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate his claim with cogent material evidences in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction given an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim and pass order on merits accordingly. The assessee is also Ram Prasad Sooda,Visakhapatnam directed to adhere to the notices issued and cooperate with the revenue authorities during the proceedings. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.