MAULI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1364/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 December 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, citing the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), leading to ex-parte assessments and penalties. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to an email ID change.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) despite prior non-compliance, and whether ex-parte orders should be set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 24.12.2024Pronounced: 31.12.2024

ITA.No.1366./PUN./2024 involves an ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the quantum appeal for want of prosecution.

2 I.T.A.Nos.1364, 1365 & 1366/PUN./2024 For the sake of convenience all these three appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

ITA.No.1366/PUN./2024 :

2.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has not filed return of income and has made cash deposit of Rs.4,67,62,590/- with various banks and cooperative societies. Since the assessee did not appear nor responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he completed the assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.4,67,62,590/-. Due to non-response of the assessee before the Assessing Officer to the statutory notices issued, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.40,000/- u/sec.271(1)(b) of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.1,44,49,640/-.

2.1. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, he upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and also confirmed the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.271(1)(b) and u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act in the ex-parte order passed by him.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that due to change of email ID, the notices issued

3 I.T.A.Nos.1364, 1365 & 1366/PUN./2024 by the O/o.Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC were not received by the assessee, for which, assessee could not submit any details before the Ld.

CIT(A)-NFAC despite opportunities granted. He submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate it’s case either before the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC.

4.

Learned DR drew the attention of the Bench to the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and submitted that the conduct of the assessee does not deserve any mercy for restoring the appeals to the file of either the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC and the addition made by the Assessing Officer including the penalties levied which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC should be confirmed.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-response to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he made addition of Rs.4,67,62,590/- being unexplained cash deposit made with various banks and cooperative societies. Further due to non- compliance to the statutory notices, he levied penalty of Rs.40,000/- u/sec.271(1)(b) of the Act and also levied penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,44,49,640/-. We find, despite four opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A)-

4 I.T.A.Nos.1364, 1365 & 1366/PUN./2024 NFAC, the assessee did not make any submission, for which, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC was constrained to pass ex-parte orders by dismissing the appeals. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that due to change in the email ID the notices issued by the O/o.Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC could not be seen for which the same could not be communicated to the Authorised Representative of the assessee. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate it’s case before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue i.e., quantum appeal as well as the penalty appeals u/sec.271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the file of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate it’s case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to make it’s submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC on the date of hearing without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly.

The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

5 I.T.A.Nos.1364, 1365 & 1366/PUN./2024

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →