Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd., Jaipur V. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 386/JPR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1487 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 386/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd. E/166 Yudhishisthir Marge, C- Scheme, Jaipur. cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL3171C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 24/06/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, J.M. Assessee is a State government Corporation. Present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 01.02.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A)/NFAC. The matter pertains to assessment year 2013-14. 2 ITA No. 386/JPR/2024 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation Ltd. Vide impugned order, the appeal filed by the assessee Corporation has been dismissed, while observing that despite notices issued by Learned CIT(A), none appeared on behalf of the assessee, and further that from the conduct of the assessee in not responding to the notices, it appeared that it was not interested or keen in perusing the appeal. At the same time, Learned CIT(A) observed that while considering records and merits of the case, there was no option but to dismiss the appeal. 2. The assessee was before Learned CIT(A), feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer, whereby penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The penalty proceedings were initiated, in view of the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 05.03.2016, that it was a case of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, as regards the assessment year 2013-14. 3. Hence, this appeal. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 3 ITA No. 386/JPR/2024 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation Ltd. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee admits issuance of notices by Learned CIT(A) on 23.10.2023 and 12.01.2024, to the assessee, but submits that due to oversight, its CA Shri Mukesh Goyal could not respond to the said notices, and as such the appeal came to be dismissed. So, the prayer is that the matter needs to be restored to Learned CIT(A) or AO for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee, of being heard. 6. Ld. DR for the department has no objection to the setting aside of the impugned order for restoration of the matter to the files of Learned CIT(A), but opposes restoration the files of Assessing Officer, as prayed on behalf of the assessee. 7. Shri Mukesh Goyal, CA is present in Court. He submits that due to oversight , two notices issued by Learned CIT(A) could not be responded by him, which led to the dismissal of the appeal. Having regard to what has been submitted by Shri Mukesh Goyal, CA at Bar, even though, he was required to respond the notices, we deem it to be a fit case to restore the matter to the files of Learned CIT(A). Be that as it may, Section 250 of the Act provides that while deciding an appeal, points for determination are required to be stated with reasons for arriving at the decision. 4 ITA No. 386/JPR/2024 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation Ltd. Here, Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal simply observing that due to no response from the side of the assessee, there was no option, but to dismiss the same, considering records and merits. But, Learned CIT(A) while passing the impugned order, did not state any point for determination, as raised by the assessee in Form 35, what to say of adjudication of or discussion on any of grounds of appeals on merits. Learned CIT(A) neither referred to the facts nor discussed so as to appreciate or uphold the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer. Absence thereof also invalidates the order which has led to dismissal of the appeal. To be more specific, vide impugned order, the appeal cannot be said to have been decided on merits. 8. Another ground raised by ld. AR for the assessee is that in the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer mentioned that it was being issued due to concealment of particulars of the income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereon, but, he did not specify as to which of the two grounds was the basis of issuance of the said notice, and as such the impugned penalty order deserves to be set aside. In this regard, reliance has been placed on decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, (2016) 286 CTR 159. Reliance has also been placed on decision in 5 ITA No. 386/JPR/2024 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation Ltd. Sonu Enterprise vs. Income Tax Officer, (2020) 59 CCH 0182 (Rajkot Trib.). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR for the department has submitted that while challenging the penalty order by way of appeal before Learned CIT(A), the assessee did not raise any such ground, and as such, said ground cannot be allowed to be raised here. 10. As noticed above, the penalty proceedings were initiated due to two reasons i.e. firstly on the ground of concealment, and, secondly, due to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee did not raise any such objection before the Assessing Officer challenging the validity of the notice. It did not allege any prejudice on account of non specification of the reason for issuance of notice. No ground of any prejudice was raised by the assessee before the Assessing Officer after having been served with the show cause notice. In the given facts and circumstances, when the matter is required to be restored to the files of Ld. CIT(A), we refrain from adjudicating this issue raised before us for the first time. Result 11. In view of the above discussion, and for the reasons recorded above, this appeal is hereby disposed of for statistical purposes and the matter is 6 ITA No. 386/JPR/2024 Rajasthan Renewable energy Corporation Ltd. restored to the files of the learned CIT(A) to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee, of being heard, and then to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/06/2024. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25/06/2024 *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Ltd, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ITA No. 386/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar