MAULI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. :
The above three appeals filed by the Assessee are
directed against the separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-
National Faceless Appellate Centre [in short “NFAC”] relating
to assessment year 2013-2014. While ITA.No. 1364/PUN./
2024 involves issue of penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), ITA.No.1365/PUN./2024
relates to levy of penalty u/sec.271(1)(b) of the Act and
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 :
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [RAMA KANTA PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Pune, Dated 31st December, 2024
VBP/-
Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File.
//By Order//
//True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
