NATHAN ROBINSON ANDREWS, THANE V. ITA WARD 29 (2) (4), MUMBAI

ITA 1424/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1799 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 271B

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “ब ” , ं म ज त " ं#, $% $ म& IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ं.1424/म ु ं/2021 ( ,. . 2014-15) ITA NO.1424/MUM/2021(A.Y.2014-15) Nathan Robinson Andrews, 602, Evelina, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (West), Thane – 400 607. PAN: ACRPA- 4572-C ...... . /Appellant ब, म Vs. I.T.O. Ward -29(2)(4), Room No.418, 4 th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051. ..... / त /Respondent . 0 / Appellant by : None / त 0 /Respondent by : Shri C.T. Mathews ु , ई 1 त / Date of hearing : 02/06/2022 234 1 त / Date of pronouncement : 02/06/2022 $श/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 15/06/2021 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed on the pretext that 2 ITA NO.1424/MUM/2021(A.Y.2014-15) the assessee has opted for ‘Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’(VSVS), whereas, the assessee has not filed any application under VSVS to settle penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 3. Notice of hearing of the appeal was sent to the assessee on multiple occasions as under: Date of issuance of notice Date of hearing 25/01/2022 14/02/2022 16/02/2022 29/03/2022 05/04/2022 02/06/2022 The notice of hearing issued for 14/02/2022 and 02/06/2022 have not been received back unserved from the Postal Authorities. Whereas, the notice sent for hearing on 29/03/2022 was received back unserved from Postal Authorities with remarks ‘unclaimed’. The assessee has not bothered to file revised Form No.36 to update his current/new address, in case the assessee has shifted from the address mentioned in Form No.36. It seems that the assessee is not keen to pursue his appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal is taken up for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record. 4. The first ground of appeal of assessee is that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of assessee on the pretext that the assessee has opted for VSVS to settle the dispute of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whereas, the assessee had field application under VSVS to settle penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. 3 ITA NO.1424/MUM/2021(A.Y.2014-15) 5. In view of the fact that the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by the CIT(A) on wrong assumption of facts, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on grounds raised in Form No.35. 6. The assessee shall make submissions/appear before the CIT(A) on service of notice, without fail and shall co-operate in the proceedings. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 02 nd day of June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) $% /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 6 , ं /Dated 02/06/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ./The Appellant , 2. / त / The Respondent. 3. ु 7त( )/ The CIT(A)- 4. ु 7त CIT 5. 8 9 / त , , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. 9 :; < = /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai