Christopher Kujur, Dewas V. The ITO-1 , Dewas

ITA 338/Ind/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Christopher Kujur against the order of the CIT-(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal ex-parte regarding a penalty imposed under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act for not filing his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The penalty of Rs. 5,000 was upheld by the CIT(A), which the assessee contested, citing a lack of proper opportunity to present his case due to the sudden death of his elder brother, who was also his senior counsel. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence on whether the notices from CIT(A) were served to the assessee and acknowledged the genuine reason for the assessee's non-attendance due to the personal loss.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122459 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 144; 2; 139; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I .T .A . N o .3 3 8 /I nd /2 0 2 2 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 11- 12 ) C h r is to p h er K uj u r 2 5 6, A l ka P ur i, D e w a s , M. P . 4 5 5 00 1 V s.I T O - 1 , D e w a s , M. P . PA N N o .A B W P K4 9 29 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 06.02.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 27.02.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. Ex-parte dismissal of appeal filed. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal ex-party without giving proper and sufficient opportunity and further erred in holding the penalty order of the A.O. dt. 21.05.2019 passed u/s 271F of the Act upholding the action of the A.O. correct. 3. That in the appeal case and in view of the matter action of CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal ex-party under this section is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA No.338/Ind/2022 Christopher Kujur vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 – 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT Appeal NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts in holding the penalty order is correct ex- party is against the principle of natural justices as there was sufficient cause for absence in last date of hearing 30.08.2022 as the real elder Brother Lt. Shree Rajendra Kumar Mahajan, Dist. And Session Judge (Retd.) of the Sr. Counsel of the appellant CA A. K. Mahajan suddenly expired due to severe Heart Attack on 29.08.2022. The Sr. Counsel of the appellant CA A.K. Mahajan was shocked, under mental trauma due to sudden and untimely personal loss of family member; they were engaged in the final rituals of the deceased elder brother resulting in non- attendance on the fixed date of appeal on 30.08.2022. 5. Sir it is further prayed that no penalty under section 271F for delay in Filing Income Tax Return under Bona Fide Belief that No Taxable Income existed. The appellant had reasonable cause for not filing the return of income before due date of filing of return; the wrong penalty charged u/s. 271F therefore deserves to be cancelled and it is prayed to kindly cancel the same. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding order of AO charging penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s. 271F. 7. The appellant craves leaves to add, alter, amend, delete any of the grounds of appeal. 8. The appellant craves leaves to refer to any material, documents, evidences placed on record.” 3. The assessee is an individual. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 28.03.2018 and thereafter issued notice under Section 142(1) dated 23.05.2018. The last notice was issued on 29.10.2018, but the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 144 of the Act thereby determined total income of assessee at Rs. 13,46,200/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 271F dated 03.12.2018 for not filing the return of income under Section 139 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the order under Section 271F the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal. ITA No.338/Ind/2022 Christopher Kujur vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 – 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. There is no change in address and therefore we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A) which are reproduced as well as grounds of appeal filed alongwith Form No. 36 before us. 6. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order under Section 271F of the Act. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the penalty passed under Section 271F is just and proper. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of CIT(A) as well. 7. We have heard Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It appears that the CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee on 24.03.2021 and 22.08.2022 but whether those notices are served or not has not been mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). Further from Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal it appears that the Chartered Accountant of the assessee has expired on 29.08.2022 and therefore, the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A), thus, there was a genuine reason for not attending the proceedings before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice we are remanding back the issue contested by the assessee before the CIT(A) to be decided after giving hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principle of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that in case the assessee did not cooperate before the CIT(A) and delays the appellate proceedings the CIT(A) may pass the ITA No.338/Ind/2022 Christopher Kujur vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 4 – order accordingly. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/02/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/02/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण,इंदौर/ DR, ITAT, Indore 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Indore 1. Date of dictation 21.02.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 21.02.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .02.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .02.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27 .02.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 27.02.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order.......................................... O r d e r p ro n o u n c e d o n 2 7/02/ 2 0 23 b y p l ac i n g t h e r e s u l t o n t h e N o t i c e B o a r d a s p e r R u l e 3 4 ( 4 ) o f t h e In c o m e T ax ( A p p e l l at e T r i b u n al ) R u l e, 1 9 6 3 .