TURNA COLD STORE THROUGH C/O SH. ROHITB ARORA. ,SHAHKOT vs. INCOMEV TAX OFFICER WARD, NAKODAR
Facts
The assessee made a cash deposit of Rs. 19.50 lacs during demonetization. The assessment was completed by estimating business profits at 8% under Section 44AD, and a penalty of Rs. 5.37 lacs was imposed under Section 270A for under-reporting income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-representation by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). It was noted that notices were issued via the ITBA portal but not necessarily to the email ID provided, and the assessee's written submissions were not considered. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the proper service of notice by the CIT(A), and the failure to consider the assessee's submissions before upholding the penalty under Section 270A.
Sections Cited
Section 44AD, Section 270A, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 26.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the penalty order of the AO, NFAC dated 15.03.2022 passed u/s 270A
of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry, that the appeal is
belatedly filed by 17 (seventeen) days and the assessee has filed an application
explaining the delay along with an affidavit, that he was out of India and did not receive
the appellate order in time and after receipt of order he took necessary steps to file this
appeal before the Tribunal which was belated filed by 17 days and he prayed for
condoning the delay and for admission of the appeal for hearing on merits.
The ld. DR has no objection.
Considering the facts that there has not been any intentional default on the part
of the assessee, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made cash deposit in bank account
during the demonetization period amounting to Rs.19.50 lacs (SBN) and in absence of
any valid return on record, assessment was completed on the basis of cash flow
statement filed by the assessee by estimating the profits from business @ (eight) 8%
u/s 44AD of the Act.
Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting of
income in consequence of mis-reporting and subsequently vide penalty order dated
15.03.2022, a penalty of Rs.5.37 lacs was imposed @200% of the tax payable on under
reported income.
3 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 7. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), has been dismissed for non-
representation by the assessee in response to various notices issued on at least five
occasions as apparent from para-4 of the appellate order.
Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal praying for an opportunity of hearing
on the ground of non-service of notice from the appellate office and as evident from
the appellate order (para 4.1) all notices has been issued in the ITBA portal and none
has been issued in the e-mail id given in Form 35 ROHIT9888106833@gmai.com.
He prayed for an opportunity of hearing before the ld. first appellate authority
which has not been allowed in this case in absence of any notice being actually
received.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) but he has no objection if the
matter is remanded.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and
we find that the notices has been issued in the ITBA portal and it is nowhere evident
whether the notice has been issued in the e-mail id mentioned in Form No. 35. It is also
seen that the written submissions of the assessee as available in the records has not
been considered by the ld. first appellate authority before sustaining the penalty order.
As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld.
CIT(A) for allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the
4 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 assessee is also directed to file his submissions along with the documentary evidences
in support of his contention and to fully co-operate in the appellate proceedings.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 20.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
