Sh. Surjit Singh, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Ward 3, Kurukshetra

ITA 648/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Surjit Singh against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which affirmed the imposition of a penalty of Rs.2,55,260 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The primary contention was whether the penalty for concealment of income could be levied merely because the assessee's appeal in the quantum proceedings was dismissed. The ITAT noted that the quantum proceedings had been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and decided to set aside the penalty issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128428 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ,चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “SMC”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.648/CHD/2022 Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year :2011-12 Sh. Surjit Singh, S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o 254,Diwana Colony, Pehowa, Kurukshetra बनाम The ITO, Ward-3, Kuruskehtra. èथायीलेखासं./PAN NO: BACBPS7853M अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे/Assessee by :Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate. राजèवकȧओरसे/ Revenue by : Sh. M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR स ु नवाईकȧतारȣख/Date of Hearing :23.03.2023 उदघोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2023 आदेश/Order Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12, wherein, NFAC have affirmed the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,55,260/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal are as under: 1. The impugned penalty order is against facts, law and record. ITA No. 648-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) - Sh. Surjit Singh, Kurukshetra 2 2. Whether the Ld. ITO has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 2,55,260/- without appreciating the facts of the case. 3. Whether penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment of income could be levied merely on the ground that the appeal of assessee was dismissed in the quantum proceedings. 4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in disposing the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and passing non- speaking and cryptic orders in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or add to above grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 3. At the outset, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceeding had been restored by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench to the file of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in ITA No. 176/Chd/2017, vide order dated 15.11.2017 and, therefore, the impugned penalty is not imposable on such set aside matter. The ld. A.R. also filed the copy of the order passed by the ITAT, Chandigarh bench as above as well as copy of order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Karnal in set aside proceedings in Appeal No. IT/08/Set Aside/KKR/2017-18, vide order dated 16.10.2018. 4. On a query from the Bench, the ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the present appeal being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of penalty afresh. 5. Having gone through the record, and after having heard both the parties, it is seen that in the set aside quantum proceedings, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has partly confirmed the disallowance initially made by the Assessing Officer and has ITA No. 648-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) - Sh. Surjit Singh, Kurukshetra 3 also given part relief. In such a situation, interest of justice would be served if the present appeal is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for reexamining and adjudicating the issue of penalty afresh. Accordingly, we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/06/2023) Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 06.06.2023 Aks/- आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु Èत/ CIT 4. आयकरआय ु Èत (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड[फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar