Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi dated 14.10.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal filed by assessee, which reads as under: “1. Because of no reason opportunity has been provided to the appellant to explain is case.
Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, in confirming penalty of Rs.53,050/- under section 271B of the IT Act, 1961.
That the appellant company reserve the right to file details/more grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
ITA No.2614/Del/2023 Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs. ITO 2 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. The reasonable cause for delay has been attributed to the misplacement of the file. Upon careful consideration, the delay in this case is condoned. In this case penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was levied amounting to Rs.53,050/-. Assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by holding as under :
“7. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the gross turnover of Rs 15,49,991/- has exceeded the prescribed limit that the assessee is not falling in the exclusion of provisions of maintaining the books of accounts as per provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee has clearly violated the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act when the turnover of the assessee is exceeding minimum limit provided under the said provisions. It is a clear case of non compliance of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, in the absence of bonafide explanation the penalty levied u/s 271B is justified. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error or illegality in the orders of the authority. Therefore, I do not intend to interfere with the order of the AO. Penalty of Rs.53,050/- u/s.271B of the Act stands confirmed Ground No.1 is Dismissed.”
Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us.
In the ground of appeal, the first issue raised as that proper opportunity has not provided to the assessee to explain the case. A perusal of the learned CIT(A)’s order shows that there is no mention that the assessee was given an opportunity to canvas the case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
ITA No.2614/Del/2023 Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs. ITO 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.11.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 10.11.2023 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI