9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sts of justice will be well-served if the assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. In view of this, the impugned order of the Assessing Officer is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) - On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee is an employee of Indian Oil Corporation. He is well aware about responsibility to file return etc. He has filed his return declaring total income of Rs. 13,57,830/-. He should have responded to the notices served upon by AO. There is no plausible explanation given by the assessee for his non-compliance. Therefore, penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that fair market value of the said property as on the date of execution of Joint Development Agreement was Rs. 2,61,82,546/-. He made the addition of 1/4th of the above value in the hands of assessee under the head Capital Gain . 4. Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 5. It has been submitted before us that in the case of other co-owner namely Dhirendra Nath Das, ITAT decided the appeal bearing ITA No. 491/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16. The Tribunal has set aside this order to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for read-judication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The finding of this order reads as under:- The present appeal has been prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had executed a JDA, however, never handed over the possession of the land to the developer. That there was a condition that the land will be handed over for development after getting it vacated from the tenants. That since the land could not be vacated from the tenants, therefore, the same could not be handed over to the developer. That due to this, the JDA did not mature and hence neither income was received nor accrued to the assessee for the year under consideration. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that the above details/submissions were not produced before the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. AR of the assessee however has submitted that there was no proper representation before the Assessing Officer by the concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Year 2015-16. 9. The grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. We find that ld. Assessing Officer has issued a notice under section 142(1), but the assessee neither appeared before the ld. Assessing Officer nor replied those questionnaires. The ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, visited the assessee with penalty for non-compliance of the notice dated 21.02.2023 and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. The appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 11. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee has challenged reopening of assessment and the quantum has been set aside to the file of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
