RAHUL GUPTA,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), HARDOI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 123/LKW/2023Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the discrepancies in the dates of the audit reports. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalties levied under Section 271A and 271B of the Income Tax Act were dismissed by the CIT(A) due to discrepancies in the dates of audit reports. The assessee claimed that the audit reports were submitted during penalty proceedings, but the stamped dates on the forms contradicted this.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain discrepancies in audit report dates. The validity of penalties under Section 271A and 271B in light of the assessee's explanation for the discrepancies.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 271B,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Saxena, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

These two appeals have filed by the assessee are being disposed off through this consolidated order for the sake of brevity and convenience. pertains to penalty amounting to Rs.25,000/- levied u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appellate order dated 25/02/2023, [ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050126663(1)].

Rs.1,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271B of the Act, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) vide a separate impugned appellate order also dated 25/02/2023, [DIN & Order No: -ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050126523(1)].

& 123/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 4 2. The assessee’s appeal vide the aforesaid two separate impugned appellate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) have been dismissed, in identically worded manner, which is being reproduced as under: - “6.4 Decision: The claim of the appellant that he had submitted the relevant audit reports at the time of assessment as part of reply to the penalty notice during penalty proceedings before the AO.

5.

After receipt of notices, the audit report and ITR were filed physically along with reply dated 27.06.2019 which is admitted in para 4.3 of the assessment order. In contrast to the above claim, the Form 3CB and 3CD filed bear the date stamp as 28th May, 2022. As these claims run counter to each other, the provisions of section 273B would not be of any avail to the appellant. Placing reliance on the observations in the penalty order, the order is justifiably to be upheld.”

3.

At the time of hearing before us, on 22/08/2024, the assessee was represented by Shri Sanjay Saxena, CA and Revenue was represented by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT, Sr. Departmental Representative. The Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) for the assessee made common submission in respect of the aforesaid two appeals. He submitted that the assessee’s case before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be effectively represented because of death of the assessee’s father. A copy of death certificate of late Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta, the assessee’s father, was filed along with a copy of legal heir certificate issued by the District Authorities, Hardoi wherein the assessee’s name appears as legal representative of late Shri Sushil Kumar Gupta. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee in order to represent the case effectively before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for revenue expresses no objection to this.

4.

We have heard both sides and perused the material on records. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of & 123/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 4 the assessee by observing some discrepancies in the dates of audit report/Form 3CB/Form 3CD. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not give any opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancy in dates. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves further opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) to explain his case; as the impugned appellate orders of Ld. CIT(A), each dated 25/02/2023, have been passed without providing opportunity to the assessee for explaining the above mention discrepancies in dates.

5. In view of the foregoing and as representative of both sides are an agreement with this, and in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, we set aside the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A), each dated 25/02/2023; and we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to pass denovo orders after affording reasonable opportunities to the assessee. These two appeals are disposed off in accordance with aforesaid directions.

6.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/08/2024.

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →