Seema Rajesh Babar, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3 (3), Pune

ITA 1567/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6887 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1567/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Seema Rajesh Babar, Flat No.8, Bldg. No.A2, Near Tapodham, Warje, Pune – 411052. PAN: ATOPB 7345 L Vs The ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pratikh Sandhbhor – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 13/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the A.Y. 2014-15 dated 07.06.2019. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the activity of installation of mobile towers. The assessee filed its return of income on 25.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.19,49,317/- for the impugned year under consideration. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) noticed that the sales as per ITS Data was Rs.2,75,84,344/- whereas the sale as per profit and loss account was Rs.2,46,44,273/-. Despite ITA No.1567/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Seema Rajesh Babar Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune (A) 2 opportunity given to the assessee to file submission, the assessee failed to explain the difference in sales. Therefore, the AO made the addition of Rs.26,40,071/-. The AO further levied penalty of Rs.7,89,777/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A) uphold the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A), it is an admitted position that the ld.CIT(A) has not decided the penalty issue on merits instead he dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay alone. Therefore, the assessee, in our view, should not be precluded an opportunity of hearing on merits, simply on account of delay alone. Our view is further strengthened by the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in Kashmir Road Lines Vs. DCIT (2021) 123 taxmann.com 5 where in it was held that even when the assessee is not interest in pursuing the appeal, even then, the ld.CIT(A) should dispose of the appeal of merits. In view of the aforementioned reasons, we set-aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh ITA No.1567/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Seema Rajesh Babar Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune (A) 3 on merits as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 15 th July, 2022/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.