GURCHARAN SINGH CO RAVINDER SINGH BABA DEEP SINGH NAGAR, MULLANPUR DISTT LUDHIANA ,PUNJAB V. .THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

ITA 767/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Shri Gurcharan Singh, an NRI, against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed a penalty under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer due to alleged concealment of income. The assessee contended that he was not served a notice of hearing and was unaware of the proceedings, as he resides in the UK. Furthermore, the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, had been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer by a previous order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, after considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107649 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2024
• Other Referred Cases: S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “ए” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE ŵी िवŢम िसंह यादव, लेखा सद˟ एवं ŵी परेश म. जोशी, Ɋाियक सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 767/Chd/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shri Gurcharan Singh C/o Ravinder Singh Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near Indian National Public School, Link Road, Mullanpur V.P.O Mandi, Ludhiana, Punjab-141101 बनाम The ITO 6(1), Ludhiana ᭭थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BRZPS2163R अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent िनधाᭅᳯरती कᳱ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज᭭व कᳱ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/12/2024 उदघोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10/12/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 29/06/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) amounting to Rs.2,80,484/- in an ex-parte order passed by him. 2. That no notice of hearing was served upon the assessee and the assessee being NRI, having British Passport and permanent resident of United Kingdom, was not knowing about the hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause, in not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the quantum addition as made by the Assessing Officer has since been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer vide order, dated 19.03.2024 , thus, the very basis of levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) is not in order and, as such, the levy of penalty be deleted. 4. That the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that this appeal is filed against the ex-parte order passed by ld CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271AAC on account of so-called concealment of income assessed vide order u/s 144 r.w.s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). It was submitted that the assessee is a NRI individual, who is having British Passport and permanent resident of United Kingdom and re-assessment in the case of the assessee was framed vide an ex-parte order dated 31.03.2022 making an addition of Rs. 48,38,588/-. The assessee filed an appeal before ld CIT(A) NFAC and vide an ex-parte order dated 31.08.2023, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Thereafter, the assessee field an appeal before the Chandigarh Bench and the quantum appeal of the assessee has been set aside to the file of the AO to be decided afresh by the Bench vide order dated 19.03.2024 in ITA No. 634 to 643/Chd/2023 and a copy of the order was placed on record. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, the matter under appeal against the penalty order may, please be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessee assures full cooperation in respect of the proceedings before the AO concerned. 4. The ld. D.R didn’t raise any specific objection where the matter is remanded to the file of AO. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In ITA No. 634 to 643/Chd/2023 dated 19/03/2024, the Coordinate Bench has remitted the quantum matters to the file of the AO and the relevant findings therein read as under: “6. We have heard both the parties and purused the material available on record. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee ex-parte by confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, without considering the material available on record, and also without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Assessee, under the mistaken impression that the notices sent on e-mail were served upon the Assessee whereas, the notices were served on the Counsel of the assessee who being in police custody couldn’t respond to the said notices and communicate with the assessee. The Assessee further deposed that there was no willful intention on his part in non-replying to the notices. The contents of the affidavit have 3 not been disputed. No material has been brought on record by the ld. DR to the contrary. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. VeluPalandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 7. Further, it is noted that even before the AO, the assessee couldn’t appear due to covid lockdown and the fact that he was not physically present in India at the relevant point in time resulting in ex-parte assessment and penalty orders being passed by the AO. 8. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter in all these cases are remitted to the file of the AO, to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the AO. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.” 6. In view of the above, the present matter is also set-aside to the file of the AO to examine a fresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/12/2024. Sd/- Sd/- परेश म. जोशी िवŢम िसंह यादव (PARESH M. JOSHI) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/ The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च᭛डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "