SHRIMATI REKHA GARG,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9/ASR/2021Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 September 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's plea and the factual position before levying the penalty. The additions were made on an estimation basis.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made to undisclosed turnover and unaccounted purchases, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee faced a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and factual matrix. Whether principles of natural justice were violated by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 31.08.2022Pronounced: 12.09.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Bathinda, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no.574/2018-19, date of order 28.11.2019, the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y.2009-10. The impugned order was originated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2),

I.T.A. No. 09/Asr/2021 2 Bathinda, [in brevity the AO], order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act date of order 28.03.2018.

2.

The assessee filed the delay with delay of 424 days. A condonation application was filed by the assessee in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Post Lockdown, period, with consent of the ld. Sr. DR, the delay of 424 days is condoned.

3.

Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) and the addition was made net profit amount to Rs.17,33,050/- undisclosed turnover amount of Rs.1,26,50,000/- calculated net profit @ 13.70% which is worked out net profit 17,33,050/-. Also, the addition was made for unaccounted purchase of bricks Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 69 and disallowance of expenses made to the labour amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. After the assessment the penalty proceeding was initiated. The penalty was levied amount to Rs.1,83,035/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

During the appeal proceeding, before ITAT, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. A brief synopsis/ argument of case was filed which is kept in the record. With the consent of the ld. Sr. DR the matter is taken up for hearing.

5.

We consider the rival submission and the orders of both the revenue authorities. The appeal was completed ex-parte. The appellate authority did not consider the factual position for levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the lower authority.

I.T.A. No. 09/Asr/2021 3 The matter was adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) without considering the assessee’s plea and the natural justice was violated. After a thoughtful consideration, we find that the addition was made on estimation basis by addition of net profit on undisclosed turnover &disallowance of expenses. The ld. Sr. Dr. relied on order of revenue authorities & had not brought any contrary fact against the assessee. Considering the merit of the case, we are setting aside the matter before the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudicating on the issue in merit. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanations submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by ld. CIT(A), and adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 09/Asr/2021 is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2022

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →