9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee to submit all the required explanations and details and plead his case on merit. Principles of natural justice would call for giving another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the interests of justice would be met in case the AO re-examines the entire issue afresh subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the 'District Legal Services Authority, Surat' within three weeks from receipt of this order. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 271F - Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quashed. AO may initiate proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act during the fresh assessment proceedings, if required conditions are fulfilled. Accordingly, the ground is allowed for statistical purpose. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) as assessee did not comply with the notices issued u/s 148, 142(1), 129 - CIT(A) observed that the AO has taken a lenient view by l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of entire credits amounting to Rs. 52,99,059/- on account of undisclosed and unexplained income. 6. It is therefore prayed that the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 may please be quashed and/or that the above addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) may please be deleted. 7. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 3. The ground of appeal in ITA No.932/SRT/2024 are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying penalty u/s 271F of Rs. 5,000/- 4. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 6. The ground of appeal in ITA No.935/SRT/2024 are as under: "1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The date of hearing was 14.08.2024 and when the assessee logged in to upload the submissions, it was discovered that the order was already passed. Even the order of learned CIT(A) does not have any mention of notice dated 07.08.2024 fixing hearing on 14.08.2024. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without passing speaking order. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in treating the notice u/s. 148 issued on 19.04.2021 after taking p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of hearing of the appeal." 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file return of income for AY.2012-13. The assessee was identified as non-filer in the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS). NMS aims to identify and monitor persons who enter into high volume transactions and have potential tax liabilities but have still not filed their tax returns. As per AIR / CIB information, assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 69,17,170/- in his bank account with Dena Bank. The assessee did not reply to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. Thereafter, case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining approval of the PCIT and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019. The assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice. The Assessing Officer (in sort, 'AO') issued notice to the bank u/s 133(6) of the Act to the Bank and on perusal of the bank statement, he found that there was total credit of Rs. 52,99,059/- in the bank account. In absence of reply from the assessee, order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act was passed treating Rs. 52,99,059/- as undisclosed and unexplained income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntioned the said fact in the order u/s 250 of the Act. In the table at para 6 of appellate order, the factum of issue of notice on 14.08.2024 has not at all been mentioned. The ld. AR further submitted that assessee had filed two replies, both dated 21.05.2022, which have not been appreciated and considered by CIT(A). The assessee was a distributor of mobile recharges of Uninor Company from which he derived his income. The assessee did not file return of income as his income was below taxable limit. It was submitted that the cash deposited represent the receipts for the talk time transferred to retailers at small mobile shops and correspondingly the assessee has made payment to Uninor Company and on the same, assessee earned profit of around 2% to 3%, which is below table income. However, both lower authorities have failed to appreciate the facts of the case and made huge addition to the total income. The ld. AR, therefore, requested to set aside the order of CIT(A). 11. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee did not furnish any explanation or supporting deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by the assessee to the credit of the 'District Legal Services Authority, Surat' within three weeks from receipt of this order. Subject to payment of above cost, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to be more vigilant and diligent and to furnish all the details and explanations as needed by the AO by not seeking adjournment without valid reasons. With these directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.933/SRT/2024 (AY:2012-13): 14. We have set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh assessment after hearing the assessee in ITA No. 931/SRT/2024 (supra). Since the matter has been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, there is no basis at all for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the penalty order does not survive, the resultant order of CIT(A) is quas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued on various occasions through the notices were duly served on the e-mail id provided by the assessee. During the appellate proceedings, no documentary evidences were submitted in spite of multiple opportunities granted by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the AO has taken a lenient view by levying penalty for one default, though there were multiple non-compliances by the assessee. The appellant has not proved that there was reasonable cause for the said failures within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. We also find that the AO has been very fair and reasonable in levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for one default only in spite of failure of assessee on four occasions to comply with the notices issued by him. It may be mentioned that section 271(1)(b) requires penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for each such failure. Therefore, instead of Rs. 40,0000/-, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, we find no reason to differ from the findings of the lower authorities. Accordingly, grounds are dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.935/SRT/2024 (AY:2013-14): 20. Facts of the case are similar to the facts of the case of the assessee for AY.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
