SH. GURPREET SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), MOHALI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2011-12
against the order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the ld.
CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken :
That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal on the ground of absence of filing of definite
ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 2 of 5 application for condonation of delay which is arbitrary and unjustified. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the imposition of penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act which is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 3. That the penalty imposed under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act is not imposable in as much as there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and as such the order passed under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary & unjustified. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in upholding the levy of penalty based on estimated additions which is not imposable and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax upholding the imposition of penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act is erroneous, arbitrary, opposed to law and facts of the case and is, thus, untenable.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its
Income Tax Return for assessment year 2011-12 on
03.03.2016 declaring an income of Rs.77,586/- under the
head ‘Dairy Farming’ and Rs.2,10,000/- as Agriculture
Income. As there was substantial discrepancy between the
income declared and deposits in his bank account, the case
was selected for scrutiny. Despite several notices issued by
the Assessing Officer, none attended the proceedings, nor
there was any response from the assessee's end. Therefore,
penalty of Rs.31,21,238/- was imposed ex-parte u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act by an order dated 27.06.2017. Against
ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 3 of 5 this penalty, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.
CIT(A).
Before Ld. CIT(A), several notices dated 23.04.2018,
30.05.2018, 06.11.2018, 29.03.2019, 29.05.2019,
17.06.2019, 04.01.2021, 10.10.2022 etc. were issued. The
assessee was required to file application for condonation of
delay as there was no definite application for condonation of
delay. On 29.05.2023, the assessee filed a reply in support
of the grounds of appeal but no application for condonation
of delay was filed. In the absence of any request for
condonation of delay, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of
the assessee upholding the imposition of penalty of
Rs.31,21,238/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this
Tribunal.
We have heard the parties and have perused the
material on record. Shri Daljit Singh Sandhu, Advocate, who
appeared before ld. CIT(A) on behalf of the assessee, has
filed an application dated 06.03.2024 stating that the
written submissions were uploaded on the portal, but
inadvertently, the application for condonation of delay in
ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 4 of 5 filing the appeal before CIT(A) was not uploaded, although it
was mentioned in Form No.35. We have found that the ld.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of
non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld.
CIT(A) and also in the absence of application for condonation
of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the
assessee should be given another opportunity to present his
case. The Assessee cannot be penalized for the lapse of his
counsel. Therefore, the file is restored to the file of ld.
CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with
law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the
fresh proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 12th March,2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam”
ITA 476/CHD/2023 A.Y.2011-12 Page 5 of 5
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/ CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar
