Arvind vs Income Tax Officer

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the asse ssee is d irected against the order dated 02.02.2026 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)wherein,appeal has been dismissed on account of no n-prosecution.

Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice, as no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the asse ssee due to the fact that incorre ct e-mail ID was used for service of notices. It is further submitted that assessee informed the Ld. CIT(A) that quantum appeal is pending before the ITAT , thus, the penalty proceedings are premature and consequential in nature, but Ld. C IT(A) confirmed the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering this fact. It was fur ther submitted that the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the notice issued u/s. 274 does not clear ly specify the charge, i.e., whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, thereby rendering the penalty proceedings void ab initio. In view of above, it was requested that impugned order b e set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the ld. C IT(A) for deciding the same afresh, by passing a speaking order, keeping in view the aforesaid factual matrix in mind .

The ld. DR, on the o ther hand, while supporting the decisio n of the learned CIT(A) has left the matter to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submissio ns of the assessee, as per law.

We have heard the r ival submissio ns and perused the material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of non-prosecution by no t furnishing any document in support of deposits in the bank account and also failed to e stablish his case and unable to bring any additional information during the course of appellate proceedings, thus, ld. C IT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the ld. AR that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee due to the fact that notices were issued to the assessee on the incorrect e-mail ID. Even otherwise, it is noted that assessee informed the ld. C IT(A) that since quantum appeal is pending before the ITAT, thus, he requested to ke ep it in abeyance , but ld. CIT(A) did no t consider this fact and confirmed the penalty u/ s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also a fact that the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) does not clearly specify the char ge, i.e ., whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for fur nishing inaccurate particulars o f income. Keep ing in view the afor esaid factual background and in the larger interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the matter deserves to be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as per law, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Accord ing ly, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) w ith a direction to adjudicate the issues, afresh after considering all the submissions, evidences and judicial precedents applicable on the subject, after afford ing a reasonable and effective opportunity of b eing heard to the assessee. T he asse ssee is also directed to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and substantiate his case before the ld. CIT(A) by filing the requisite sub missions, docume nts and evidences, if so desired.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.