AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is a batch of two appeals of the same assessee. ITA No.937 pertains to the quantum matter while ITA 938 pertains to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”). These two matters are interconnected, hence, they are being disposed of through a single order.
It is seen that the impugned orders in both the appeals are more or less ex parte in nature since the assessee did not substantively comply with the terms of the notices for hearing.
Right at the outset, the Ld. AR prayed for one more chance to present the facts before the authorities below. It was stated that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant, substantial compliance could not be made before the authorities below. The Ld. AR regretted such non-compliance and undertook to make full compliance in case the matter was to be remanded back.
The Ld. DR did not have any objection in case the matters were to be remanded back.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of these cases, we deem it fit, in the interests of justice, to set aside the impugned orders in both the appeals and thereafter remand the quantum matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. As a result of this setting aside of the impugned quantum order the penalty in ITA No.938 gets deleted but the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to revive the same appropriately in case there is some addition to the returned income after his adjudication.
In the result, ITA No.937 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No.938 is allowed for statistical purposes.