Vinod Chandra Pant, Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow New , Lucknow

ITA 16/LKW/2023

AI Insights

Vinod Chandra Pant, the appellant, challenged the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance with notices dated 26.11.2021 and 16.12.2021. The assessee argued that the notices were sent to an old email address despite his request to update it. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating that no response or adjournment request was received from the assessee. The ITAT found that the adjournment request was indeed made but not considered by the NFAC, leading to the restoration of the case to the NFAC for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123004 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 147; 142(1); 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.16/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vinod Chandra Pant, C-2/246, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. PAN: AAXPP 6444Q Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Lucknow New (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17 wherein, vide the impugned order, the NFAC has dismissed the assessee’s appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Appellant by Ms. Shweta Mittal, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing 14/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 26/09/2023 I.T.A. No.16/Lkw/2023 2 Rs.20,000/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income for the captioned assessment year declaring total income of Rs.5,98,810/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144(b) of the Act at total income of Rs.1,55,78,810/-. Subsequently, the notice for penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued for non compliance of statutory notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 26.11.2021 and 16.12.2021. It was the assessee’s submission and response to the penalty notice that the non compliance was on account of some misunderstanding between the assessee and the Assessing Officer and that the notices were sent at the old e- mail address in spite of specific request made by the assessee to send notices on the new e-mail I.D. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submission of the assessee and proceeded to impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each default totaling to Rs.20,000/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the imposition of penalty. The appeal of I.T.A. No.16/Lkw/2023 3 the assessee was dismissed with the NFAC observing that the assessee was given an opportunity to be heard but no reply was received nor any adjournment was sought by the assessee. Accordingly, the penalty was confirmed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the NFAC and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was non- compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) dated 26.11.2021 and 16.12.2021 and in levying penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts as the response was duly made of all the details and information called for from time to time. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and on facts in passing the order which is contrary to the facts, law and natural justice. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal or raise any new ground of appeal during the pendency of appeal.” I.T.A. No.16/Lkw/2023 4 5. The ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee had sought adjournment before the NFAC, which however, was not considered by the NFAC. She drew our attention to the printout of the snapshot captured from the e- portal of the Income Tax Department, wherein the assessee had requested for adjournment on the appointed date. She submitted that the NFAC had not even considered the adjournment request and had decided the appeal against the assessee, hence, depriving the assessee of the valuable right to be represented/heard. 6. On a query from the Bench, the ld. A.R. as well as the ld. D.R. agreed that the issue may be restored to the file of the NFAC for being adjudicated afresh. 7. Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the record, it is apparent that the adjournment application filed by the assessee before the NFAC was somehow not considered. Therefore, on the facts of the case, we restore this appeal to the NFAC with the direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the NFAC during the set aside proceedings. I.T.A. No.16/Lkw/2023 5 8. In the final result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 26/09/2023) Sd/- Sd/- (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA ) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 26 /09/2023 Aks/- Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar