9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the issues arising in this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and all the issues restored to file of the learned CIT(A) to decide all issues afresh on merits in accordance with law - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes - I .T.A. No.1658/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2018 - SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri. D.G. Pansari ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 1658/Mum/2014, is directed against appellate order dated 31.10.2013 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the new address at conspicuous place of the premises and the shifting was also for a temporary period. 5. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai erred in disposing the appeal without considering the grounds of appeals and statement of facts submitted on merits. 6. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai erred in dismissing the appeal filed against penalty levied of ₹ 10.63.4l7/- on income estimated on the basis of certain presumptions and assumptions without considering the merits of the case and therefore, penalty levied be deleted/ cancelled. 7. The Appellant craves to add, alter or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee declared gross receipts of ₹ 6.75 crores in the return of income filed with the Revenue which was later enhanced to ₹ 9.53 crores in the revised computation of income filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings . This led to the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act by the AO vide penalty orders dated 26.06.2012, passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act wherein penalty of ₹ 10,63,417/- was levied by the AO on the assessee for filing inaccurate particulars of income . The AO held that filing revised computation of income before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings post issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act by Revenue is not a voluntary act but rather w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice from his legal consultant which led to the delay in filing of this appeal. We are of the view after hearing Ld. DR and perusing the material on record that the assessee appeal need to be admitted in the interest of substantial justice as the assessee has brought on record sufficient cause for such delay. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) is relevant. When technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the course which advances substantial justice is to be preferred vis- -vis technicalities. The doors of justice cannot be shut on grounds of mere technicalities but by adoption a course of substantial justice at the best the issues raised by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee even before us when the appeal was called for hearing. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) and admitted that the said appellate order is an ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of the assessee. The learned DR prayed for confirmation of penalty as was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act and later confirmed by learned CIT(A) in his appellate order by contending that the act of the assessee in filing revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings post issuance of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act is not a voluntary act but it is only when the assessee was cornered the assessee came forward by filing revised computation of incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which culminated into penalty levied by the AO to the tune of ₹ 10,63,417/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act vide penalty orders dated 26.06.2012 which was later confirmed by learned CIT(A) vide an ex-parte appellate order dated 31.10.2013 dismissing appeal of the assessee, mainly on grounds of non appearance and also that the learned CIT(A) disbelieved the version of the assessee that it voluntarily filed revised computation of income during assessment proceedings before the AO. The assessee is now before us and none has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us when the appeal was called for hearing. In grounds of appeal as well statement of facts, the pleas of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
