Jay Kaushik Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 432/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Jay Kaushik Pandya, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issues in the appeal were the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the adjudication of a penalty order under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, which imposed a penalty exceeding Rs. 10,000 without prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, contrary to the conditions prescribed in Section 274(2) of the Act. The ITAT found the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, due to personal difficulties faced by the assessee, to be sufficient and thus condoned the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299934 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69; 144; 2; 271B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 4 3 2/ A h d /2 0 2 3 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 11- 12 ) Ja y K au sh ik P a n d y a, 24, S h ya m V il la -I I , N r . B a s a n t Vi h ar 1 B o p a l, Ah me dab ad -3 80 0 5 4 Vs .I T O War d - 3 ( 2) ( 2 ) , A h me da ba d [ P AN N o. A T X P P8 6 32 P ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Maloo, C.A. Respondent by : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 20.07.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 21.07.2023 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 06.04.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in not condoning the unintentional delay in filing of the appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has grossly erred in not adjudicating the issue of penalty order u/s 271B imposing penalty exceeding Rs. 10,000 passed without taking prior approval of the Joint Commissioner thereby violating the conditions prescribed in Section 274(2) of the Act. 3. The appellant craves liberty to add / alter any ground of appeal, if required.” 3. The assessee filed his return of income on 02.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,52,802/-. The assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 12.12.2017 thereby assessing total income at Rs. 21,98,047/- after making addition of Rs. 8,29,745/- on ITA No. 432/Ahd/2023 Jay Kaushik Pandya vs. ITO Asst.Year–2011-12 - 2 - account of profit from share transaction and addition of Rs. 12,12,500/- under Section 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271B of the Act of Rs. 1,50,000/- being half per cent of the turnover worked to Rs. 5,31,085/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order under Section 271B of the Act the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance for the reason of delay in filing the appeal before CTI(A). Thus, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) after condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly rejected the reasons given by the assessee for delay. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as the assessee was having personal difficulties within the family the assessee could not approach his tax consultant / professional for filing the appeal against the penalty order. This is a sufficient reason and the same should have been condoned by the CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned and the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issue contested therein on merit ITA No. 432/Ahd/2023 Jay Kaushik Pandya vs. ITO Asst.Year–2011-12 - 3 - and decided as per the law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principle of natural justice. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 21/07/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 21/07/2023 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, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 20.07.2023 2. Date on which the type draft is placed before the Dictating Member 20.07.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .07.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .07.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 21.07.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 21.07.2023 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..........................................