PRADIP MARUTI POWAR,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 694/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 July 2021AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeal) had not adjudicated the penalty issue on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeal) to decide the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to attend hearings before the Assessing Officer and did not provide a reasonable cause for non-compliance. The CIT(Appeal) dismissed the appeals in limine as the grounds of appeal did not pertain to the penalty levied.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied for non-attendance without reasonable cause is justified and whether the CIT(Appeal) should have adjudicated the penalty on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Hearing: 01.07.2021Pronounced: 01.07.2021

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: These three appeals preferred by the common assessee emanates from the common order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-2, Kolhapur dated 11.01.2018 for the assessment year 2008-09 as per the following common grounds of appeal

on record :

1.

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied of Rs.10,000/- in each of the appeals is not justified considering the facts of the case and reasonable cause for non- attendance by the assessee. The penalty levied be quashed.

2.

The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.”

2. The only grievance raised in all these appeals is with regard to levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- in each of the appeals u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

3. At the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor his authorized representative was present. The submissions of the Ld. DR were recorded and the cases were considered on merits.

4. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) in respect of all these appeals, it is observed that he has not dealt with the merits of the case since before him the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee as enclosed in Form-35 pertained to quantum addition issues but not in respect of the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Since the grounds of appeal did not emanate from penalty orders, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) had dismissed them in limine. That therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has not adjudicated upon the rights and liabilities of the parties herein. We also observe that the assessee who was served notice u/s.142(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer requesting him to attend the hearing, there was no response from the assessee and he had failed to attend the same. The assessee had also not provided any reasonable cause before the Revenue Authorities for such non- compliance. That however, we always consider the fact that Income Tax Act is welfare legislation and not penal legislation. Therefore, as far as possible opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent his case on merits before the Quasi-Judicial Authorities. We are of the considered view, therefore that the cases of the assessee must be dealt with on merits by the Ld. CIT(Appeal).

5.

The Ld. DR fairly conceded to this observation of the Bench. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remand the matters back to his file to adjudicate whether penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act would be leviable in the cases of the assessee on merits as per law. At the same time, the assessee is directed to rectify the defects in the grounds of appeal in Form 35 and file proper grounds of appeal along with necessary documents /evidences to represent his cases on merits. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

6.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01st day of July, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 01st July, 2021. SB आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.

3.

The CIT(Appeal)-2, Kolhapur.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →