Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, “A” PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-5, Pune, dated 27.11.2017 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 was filed on 2 Mrs. Shahnaz Ali Mohammad Somjee
2004 declaring a total income of Rs.22,76,580/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.03.2006 at a total income of Rs.3,01,80,370/-. While doing so, the AO made addition under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’ of Rs.2,78,83,000/- by adopting the deemed sale consideration as stipulated under the provisions of section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and denied the claim for exemption under the provisions of section 54EC of the Act. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of AO and even on further appeal before the Tribunal, the orders of the lower authorities was confirmed.
While the matter stood thus, a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 16.03.2012 was issued requiring the appellant to show cause why the penalty should not be levied. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed an explanation contesting that the assessee has not concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and mere disallowance of claim does not entail the levy of penalty and reliance also placed on the decisions (a) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct (P) Ltd. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320; (b) ACIT vs. Mahindra Shubhlab Services Ltd. (2009) 31 SOT 361 (Mumbai) and (c) T.Ashok Pai vs. CIT (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 259. The above explanation was rejected by the AO by holding that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of income and levied the penalty of Rs.42,72,747/- vide order dated 30.03.2012. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal for non-
3 Mrs. Shahnaz Ali Mohammad Somjee
prosecution without going into the merits of the issue on levy of penalty. Being aggrieved by this appeal, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. When the matter was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of assessee despite due service of service.
We have heard Sr. DR and perused the material on record. On mere reading the impugned order, it is clear that though the CIT(A) was justified in the circumstances of the case to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, it is the requirement of law that the CIT(A) should go into the merits of the case in appeal and decide the matter on merits. Since in the present case, the CIT(A) had not passed the order in conformity with the requirement of law, we remit the issue back to the file of CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the issue in appeal on merits. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the file of CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th September, 2021. INTURI RAMA RAO S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 9th September, 2021 GCVSR
4 Mrs. Shahnaz Ali Mohammad Somjee
आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune;
The Pr.CIT, Pune-4, Pune; 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “A” / DR ‘A’,
ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //सत्यावऩत प्रतत//// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune