Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya through legal heir Smt. Bhavnaben B. Pandya, Vadodara V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

ITA 52/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0555 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । ।। । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.52/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya (Through Legal Heir Smt.Bhavnaben B. Pandya) 58, Manorath Society Opp. Amar Complex New Sama Road, Vadodara Gujarat – 390 008 Vs The ITO Ward 4(1)(7) Vadodara PAN: ACUPP 3124 C / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri –None- (Written Submissions) Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR /Date of Hearing : 05/10/2023 /Date of Pronouncement: 17/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R This appeal filed by the Assessee (Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya through Legal Heir Smt. Bhavnaben B. Pandya) is directed against the order dated 12/12/2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2011-12 by raising following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld.CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and for want of prosecution. The appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC, and may please be directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. ITA No. 52/Ahd/2023 Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya (Through L/H. Smt. Bhavnaben B.Pandya) vs. ITO AY 2011-12 2 2. The Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC even in deciding the appeal and dismissing it ex-parte ought to have dealt with the merits of the issues involved and decided the appeal on merits by a speaking order observing the principles of natural justice. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC may please be set aside. 3. The Ld.A.O. has erred in law and in facts in issuing notice u/s.271(1)(c) in the name of dead person. The notice so issued is illegal/and invalid in law. The order passed consequent to such illegal/invalid notice is prayed to be quashed. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.A.O. has erred in levying penalty on the legal heir for the default made by the deceased person which is bad in law and the order passed in the name of legal heir is prayed to be quashed. 5. Without prejudice to the earlier grounds, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld.A.O. in the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.1,01,980/- in violation of law inasmuch as that the penalty levied is without specifying the charge of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and thus deserves to be quashed.” 2. The assessee availed LTC for foreign locations and claimed exemption u/s.10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for reimbursement. The claim also included travelling at foreign destinations. The Assessing Officer observed that the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of section 10(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, notices were issued but no compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.1,01,980/- @ 100%. ITA No. 52/Ahd/2023 Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya (Through L/H. Smt. Bhavnaben B.Pandya) vs. ITO AY 2011-12 3 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30/12/2021, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, but the Legal Representative/Legal Heir of the assessee has filed the written submissions before the Tribunal. The same are taken on record. 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and, hence, the Assessing Officer has rightly imposed the penalty which was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). 6. Heard the Ld.DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was a salaried employee working with Bank of Baroda and the assessee’s case was reopened when he was alive. Subsequently, on 14/06/2015 the assessee died and the same was intimated to the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 12/10/2015. The proceedings before the Income Tax Authorities were attended by his wife, Smt. Bhavnaben Pandya as a legal heir. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,35,832/- on account of denying the claim of exemption u/s.10(5) of the Act on account of LTC/LTA. The quantum appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). The penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income. After going through the notices, the particular limb was not specified by the Assessing Officer while invoking the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Besides this, the claim of the assessee regarding reimbursement of LTC/LTA cannot ITA No. 52/Ahd/2023 Late Shri Bhaskar Dineshchandra Pandya (Through L/H. Smt. Bhavnaben B.Pandya) vs. ITO AY 2011-12 4 be stated as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee under a bonafide belief made the said claim and, therefore, the provisions relating to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will not be attracted in the present case. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17 th November, 2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 17/11/2023 . ी. य , . . ./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ! "# /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. "!ी $% / The Appellant 2. &य$% / The Respondent. 3. '(')* य य + / Concerned CIT 4. य य + )"!ी (/ The CIT(A)- (NFAC) Delhi. 5. . /ीय )* , य "!ी य ")* , ज /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. / 12 3 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, &य ! //True Copy// ह य !'जी (Asstt. Registrar) य "!ी य ")* , ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation on 10.11.2023 6-page pad attached : 10.11.23 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 10.11.23 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 17.11.23 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 17.11.23 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :