Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 380/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2001-02
Sh. Parvinder Jit Singh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bindra, 232, Guru Gobind Ward 3(3), Jalandhar Singh Nagar, Jalandhar [PAN: AAOPB 0966C] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : J. S. Bhasin, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
CORRIGENDUM Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
There are apparent factual mistakes noticed Suo moto in the reproduction of primary facts, in the body of the order pronounced on 08.07.2022 I.T.A. No. 380/Asr/2016, Assessment Year 2001-02 as above and therefore, the relevant para 4, 6 and 7 of the said order stands modified as under:
The appellant assessee contended in the grounds that the AO leviedthe penaltywithout giving adequate time to assessee to file his explanation, and the Ld. CIT (A) confirm the penalty brushing aside the bonafide explanation filed by the appellant assessee. The Ld. AR prayed to
2 ITA No. 380/Asr/2016 Parvinder Jit Singh Bindra v. ITO remand back the matter to the Ld. CIT (A) to pass a speaking order on merits after granting adequate opportunity and considering the written submission of the assessee on record.
We have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the material available on record. There was delay of five days in filing the appeal which is condoned in appeal was admitted to be heard on merits. The learned DR for the assessee submitted that the AO has neither made a specific charge in the penalty notice issued under section 274 it was section 271(1)(c) of the act nor in the assessment order. The learned AR contended that that the penalty was initiated for the concealment of income while in the notice it was not specified. However, the learned AR could not produce the copy of the said penalty notice on record. The counsel has further argued that the learned CIT appeal was just swayed by the quantum and without appreciating the facts of the case, rejected the appellant assessee's explanation supported by cogent evidence. The appellant objected to the order of the ld. CIT(A) that he was not justified in arbitrarily brushing aside the assessee’s most plausible explanation filed in appeal to summarily uphold the levy of penalty against law and facts of the case. He prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the learned CIT appeal to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the written submissions in view of the documentary evidences filed on record and affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The contention of the ld. AR that details required by the CIT(A) were available on record but the same was arbitrarily brushed aside by him though the assessee’s most plausible explanation filed in appeal ought to
3 ITA No. 380/Asr/2016 Parvinder Jit Singh Bindra v. ITO rebut to the assessee before summarily upholding the levy of penalty against law and facts of the case. Considering the appellant contention that it is inferred that in absence of sufficient opportunity of being heard to produce the necessary further documents if required as per principles of natural justice, we find it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh, as per provisions of law, after taking into consideration the material evidence on record and after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as per principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the case is restored to the CIT(A), for afresh adjudication of the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act as per law. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 28.09.2022 *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order