Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1371/Chd/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09
M/s Thakur Pre-Preeksha Coaching Vs. The ITO(Exemption) & Training Sansthan, Nahan Pukhur Solan, H.P. Tehsil Dehra, Kangra (H.P.)
PAN No. AABAT6599F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018
ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of
the Ld. CIT(A), Palampur(H.P.) dt. 29/05/2017.
In the present appeal assessee has raised the following grounds:
That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in her order dated 29.05.2017 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2 That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B even when the appellant filed ITR claiming deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) and therefore he was not required to gel his accounts audited u/s 44 AB.
That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B even when the books of the appellant had been rejected by the Ld. AO.
That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was not granted adequate opportunity of being heard by the Worthy CIT(A) and also by the Ld. AO and therefore the orders of both the lower authorities deserves to be set-aside.
The appeal is barred by 17 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating
that the delay was due to compilation of various documents to file appeal
which took considerable time. Hence the delay is condoned.
The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 271B has been levied ex-parte
by the Assessing Officer for not getting the books of accounts audited.
The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty order ex-parte on the
grounds that the Income & Expenditure Account has not been produced
before the Assessing Officer. It was held that
“the assessee was required to get his account audited under section 12A(1)(b)
as its total income without giving effect to the provisions of Section 11 & 12 of
the Act exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to Income Tax “
Before us, during the hearing the Ld. AR has given a oral undertaking that,
provided an opportunity, he would participate in the proceedings before the
Ld. CIT(A).
Hence, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to
pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the submissions made by
the assessee. And we believe that the assessee would not abuse the trust
reposed on them.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 27/03/2018 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR