9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 354 - AT - Income TaxPenalty proceedings u/s. 271B - not auditing the account of the assessee and not furnishing the same within the due date - Assessee 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 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 - HELD THAT - As DR did not report any objection in remanding the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for its fresh adjudication. 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.
Issues: Appeal against penalty levied under sections 271B, 271(1)(b), and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09.
Analysis: 1. ITA No. 2799/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2008-09: - The issue involves challenging the penalty under section 271B. The penalty was imposed for not auditing the account of the assessee within the due date. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under this section. - The argument raised was that the penalty was based on an assessment completed under section 144 of the Act, which was no longer on record. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the Tribunal's order regarding the original assessment proceedings. - Both parties agreed to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the argument and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for further proceedings, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence if necessary. - The appeal in ITA No. 2799/PUN/2017 was allowed for statistical purposes. 2. ITA No. 2800/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2008-09: - The issue pertains to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The penalty was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte manner. - It was unanimously agreed that the facts and circumstances in this appeal were identical to the previous case. Therefore, the decision from ITA No. 2799/PUN/2017 was applied mutatis mutandis, and the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. - The appeal in ITA No. 2800/PUN/2017 was allowed for statistical purposes. 3. ITA No. 2801/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2008-09: - The issue involved a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty amount was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in an ex-parte manner. - Similar to the previous cases, it was unanimously agreed that the facts and circumstances were identical. Therefore, the decision from ITA No. 2799/PUN/2017 was applied, and the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. - The appeal in ITA No. 2801/PUN/2017 was allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, all the appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the Tribunal's directions. The delays in filing the appeals were condoned, and the parties agreed to hear all the appeals together for convenience. The Tribunal's decision aimed at ensuring fair adjudication and compliance with statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
