2019 (1) TMI 1462 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Held that - Reasons recorded have not been mentioned in the assessment order nor in the order passed by the CIT (A). All these facts go to prove that the assessment has been framed in haste without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Even the CIT (A) has not provided adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee rather relied upon unsubstantiated fact that when order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 02.06.2017 was received by the assessee, he cannot be believed that the notice u/s 148 of the Act and notices sent u/s 142 (1) have not been received by the assessee. To meet with the ends of justice, assessment order passed by the AO and impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A) are required to be set aside. Hence case is remanded back to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Consequently, the aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - since the assessment order framed u/s 144/147 of the Act on the basis of which penalty proceedings were initiated has been set aside to the file of AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the penalty proceedings being consequential in nature are also liable to be set aside to the AO to decide accordingly after framing new assessment order.

Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Non-appearance of the assessee during proceedings.
4. Opportunity of being heard not provided adequately.
5. Unexplained cash deposit in the saving bank account.
6. Reopening of assessment without proper reasons recorded.
7. Setting aside of assessment and penalty proceedings for fresh decision.

Issue 1: Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The appellant sought to set aside the penalty order dated 12.05.2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant raised various grounds, including non-receipt of notices, being an agriculturist, and the location of the agricultural land sold. The appellant also contested the imposition of the penalty after the completion of assessment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes due to inadequate opportunity of being heard and non-receipt of notices.

Issue 2: Assessment under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessment was framed under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the notice u/s 148 issued on 16.03.2016. The appellant failed to appear before the AO, leading to the addition of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The Tribunal found that the assessment was done hastily without proper reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Issue 3: Non-appearance of the assessee during proceedings:
Despite notices being issued, the assessee did not appear during the proceedings, leading to decisions being made in their absence. This non-appearance affected the assessment and penalty proceedings, highlighting the importance of the assessee's participation in tax matters.

Issue 4: Opportunity of being heard not provided adequately:
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and the ld. CIT (A) did not provide adequate opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The lack of proper hearing led to decisions being made based on unsubstantiated facts, necessitating the setting aside of the assessment and penalty orders for a fresh decision with proper hearing.

Issue 5: Unexplained cash deposit in the saving bank account:
The assessment included additions on account of unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account. The Tribunal found that these additions were made without sufficient reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, indicating a lack of due process in the assessment proceedings.

Issue 6: Reopening of assessment without proper reasons recorded:
The Tribunal highlighted the absence of clear reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, indicating a lack of procedural adherence. This lack of transparency in the assessment process led to the decision to set aside the assessment order for a fresh decision.

Issue 7: Setting aside of assessment and penalty proceedings for fresh decision:
Due to procedural irregularities, lack of proper reasons, and inadequate opportunities of being heard, the Tribunal set aside both the assessment and penalty proceedings. The cases were remanded back to the AO for fresh decisions after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the procedural irregularities and the importance of due process in tax matters, emphasizing the need for fair hearings and proper recording of reasons in assessments and penalty proceedings.

← Previous Next →