MIHIR ENTERPRISES,,THANE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, SOLAPUR

All these three appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-7, Pune for the assessment year 2008-09.

At the very outset, Shri Pramod Shingte, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 142 days and in respect thereof, he has filed condonation petition along with affidavit. The Ld. AR also agreed that this delay was un-intentional and cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee. After hearing both the parties herein, we condone the delay of 142 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits.

The Ld. AR submits that all the appeals involve the same assessee basing on identical facts and therefore, requested to hear all the appeals together. Upon hearing the Ld. DR and with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together for the sake of convenience.

First, we would take up the appeal in for the assessment year 2008-09.

The only issue raised in this appeal is challenging the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Heard both the parties herein. We note that the penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act was initiated by the Assessing Officer for not auditing the account of the assessee and not furnishing the same within the due date.

The Ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer completed original assessment proceedings u/s.144 of the Act which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal in appeal, remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication and accordingly, assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed. He argued that this penalty was imposed on the basis of assessment completed u/s.144 of the Act, since the said assessment is no more in existence on record and the penalty imposed thereon is not maintainable but however agreed to remand the issue to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication in terms of the order of this Tribunal in relation to the original assessment proceedings passed u/s.144 of the Act.

Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Ld. DR did not report any objection in remanding the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find force in the argument of the Ld. AR in remanding the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication. The assessee is at liberty to file its evidences, if any, in support of its contentions.

In the result, appeal of the assesse in is allowed for statistical purposes.

At the very outset, Shri Pramod Shingte, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 142 days and in respect thereof, he has filed condonation petition along with affidavit. The Ld. AR also agreed that this delay was un-intentional and cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee. After hearing the both the parties herein, we condone the delay of 142 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.

In this appeal, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act for default in compliance of statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act for sum of Rs.30,000/- which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in ex-parte the assessee.

Both the parties herein unanimously agreed that facts and circumstances in this appeal is absolutely identical to the facts and circumstances raised in ITA No.2799/PUN/2017. Therefore, our decision rendered in shall mutatis mutandis apply in this case also. Hence, we remand the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication with similar directions given in ITA No.2799/PUN/2017.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

At the very outset, Shri Pramod Shingte, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal is time barred by 142 days and in respect thereof, he has filed condonation petition along with affidavit. The Ld. AR also agreed that this delay was un-intentional and cannot be attributed to the deliberate conduct of the assessee. After hearing the both the parties herein, we condone the delay of 142 days and admit the appeals for hearing on merits.

In this case, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for sum of Rs.5,89,210/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in ex-parte the assessee.

Both the parties herein unanimously agreed that facts and circumstances in this appeal is absolutely identical to the facts and circumstances raised in ITA No.2799/PUN/2017. Therefore, our decision rendered in shall mutatis mutandis apply in this case also. Hence, we remand the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication with similar directions given in ITA No.2799/PUN/2017.

In the result, appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05th day of May, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- R.S.SYAL S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 05th May, 2021. SB