HAMZA SYED ,NANDED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI , DELHI

We notice at the outset that the assessee’s instant twin appeals involve sec.147/144 and consequential 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings; respectively. Learned DR invited our attention to the Assessing Officer’s sec.144 discussion making sec.69 quantum addition of Rs.4,29,38,000/- as upheld in lower appellate discussion in ITA.No.169/PUN./2024 followed by levy of consequential penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, forming subject matter of the latter appeal ITA.No.170/PUN./ 2024.

We proceed in this factual backdrop and notice from a perusal of the learned NFAC’s detailed discussion herein that the assessee appears to have been granted various opportunities which he failed to avail. The fact also remains that there is no effective compliance in the learned NFAC’s discussion qua the relevant statutory provision i.e., sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to effectively framing any points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof.

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.169 & 170/ PUN./2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.