SHRI MOHITESHWAR SINGH DHILLON, AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 ( 3 ) , AMRITSAR

ITA 475/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7301 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No. 475/ASR/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) Sh. Mohiteshwar Singh Dhillon Dhillon Niwas, Block-C, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar [PAN: AUEPS 9538H] (Assessee) Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3), Amritsar (Revenue) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, D. R. Date of Hearing 29.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2021 ORDER Per Manish Borad, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Amritsar dated 30.04.2019 for Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the Learned Income Tax Officer imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrong, illegal against facts and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. I.T.A No. 475/ASR/2019 2 2. That no valid service of notice u/s 142(1)/143(2) and 271(1)(b) has ever been affected on assessee. 3. That no show cause notice before imposing penalty was issued and served. 4. That in any case penalty imposed is erroneous and without justification. 5. Tha the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order for the reason no submissions have been made which is wrong and against facts. The submissions have been made on 27/04/2019 vide mail which has not been considered.” 3. None appears on the assessee’s behest. Case heard with the assistance that the Ld. Departmental Representative was given of the assessee is again the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.10,000/- 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and persued the record placed before us. We find that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for AY 2007-08. Various opportunities were provided by the Ld. Assessing Officer but there was no compliance. The Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 rws 147 of the Act and also levied fee u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non appearance before him at Rs. 10,000/-. 6. We notice that when the assessee challenged, this levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), he failed to succeed due to non appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). I.T.A No. 475/ASR/2019 3 7. However looking to the current situations of Covid-19 Pandemic for the last two years and also under the given facts that assessee could not file any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) about the reasons which prevented him to appear before the Ld. Assessing Officer and in the interest of justice, we set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to appear and as gone on merits. Needless to mention that Ld. CIT(A) will provide the assessee with proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/11/2021. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 30/11/2021 *GP/Sr. P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT True Copy By Order