AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 08.01.2026 arising out of penalty order dated 26.07.2024 passed under section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed ex-parte order in his case and hence requested for remission of its matter.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the following brief factual matrix of the case as available in the order of the ld. CIT(A):-
4.Brief facts of the case: In the above-mentioned case as per penalty order, the appellant had not filed his return of income for Assessment year 2015-16. As per information available on record, during the F.Y. 2014-15, the appellant sold immovable property of Rs.50,40,000/-. On the basis of information notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 03.04.2022. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant filed return of income on 17.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.8,93,680/-. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued time to time. The appellant did not furnish any reply to any of the notices issued to him. The AO completed the assessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 17.01.2024 determining the appellant’s total income at Rs.51,07,444/- by making addition on account of sale of immovable property of Rs.42,13,760/-.
4.1Further, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income. Thereafter notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 17.01.2024 and 26.04.2024 to submit his reply on or before 16.02.2024 and 10.05.2024 respectively. However, no response was received from the appellant. Again, an opportunity of being heard was provided by issuing reminder letter dated 15.04.2024. But the appellant failed to file reply to the notice. Further VC was conducted 22.07.2024 and case was discussed. Thereafter, AO passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 26.07.2024 by imposing penalty of Rs.13,90,540/-(100% of the tax sought to be evaded) on the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal, as mentioned in Para 2 above.
5.Notices u/s. 250 of the Act were issued on various dates as mentioned in Para 7.1 below. On all these occasions, the appellant neither made any written submissions nor filed any application seeking adjournment. After enabling the window for communication with the CIT(A), by the NFAC with effect from 01/09/2024 also, no communication has been received from the appellant till date. Considering the above facts, it is clear that, in this case, sufficient number of opportunities have already been granted to the appellant, which the appellant has failed to avail. Under these facts and circumstances, where the appellant’s consistent non-compliance and indifference to the appellate proceedings is abundantly manifest, I do not have any alternative but to decide the appeal on the basis of facts available in grounds of appeal and assessment order of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the appeal is being decided ex-parte on the basis of material available on record.
6.As mentioned in Para 7.1 of this appeal order, this office has issued several letters/notices to file written submission. However, no adjournment and no written submissions were filed. The notices were issued on email available in the ITBA Module of the Income Tax Department.”
The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly requested that it may be provided one last opportunity to defend its case before the learned lower authorities.
The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not complied that the statutory notices of the lower authorities and that it would like to rely upon the order of the lower authorities.
We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on records. We have also noted that the Ld. AO has also drawn his conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. We are also satisfied with the justification tendered by the appellant for its past non-compliance. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.