PALWINDER SINGH, VILLAGE HARAH KHURD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR

ITA 80/ASR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1508 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 142(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 80 & 86/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Palwinder Singh House No. 78, Vill. Harah Khurd, Teh. Ajnala, Amritsar 143001, Punjab [PAN: BTJPS 4036B] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amritsar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, CA Sh. Digvijai Kumar, Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 05.09.2024 11.09.2024 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi even dated 27.12.2023 challenging therein conformation of penalty levied u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18. 2 ITA Nos. 80 & 86/Asr/2024 Palwinder Singh v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appellant assessee is an agriculturist and does not have any non-agricultural income assessable to tax. The AO has levied the penalty u/s 271F for non filing of return of income in compliance to notices u/s 148 dated 28.03.2019 stated to be served electronically and penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) for non compliance of statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee did not receive any of the above stated notices issued by the Assessing Officer. He contended that in the absence of proper service of notices, the proceedings initiated gets vitiated and the proceedings so initiated are bad in law. In support, he placed the reliance on the following judgments is as under: CIT v. Har Parshad [1989] 178 ITR 591 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) ITO v. Manmohanlal [1988] 173 ITR 10 (Orissa) Munjal BCU of Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) [2024] 160 taxmann.com 629 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Alternatively, the ld. AR submitted that quantum appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A) and these two appeals may be restored to CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with quantum appeal. 3 ITA Nos. 80 & 86/Asr/2024 Palwinder Singh v. ITO 3. Per contra, the defendant ld. DR submitted that the statutory notices have been sent on the e-mail and postal address of the assessee where the notices have been served and received by the brother of the assessee which is a valid service. He pleaded that since there was no return of income filed and non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalties are validly levied. He prayed that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) be sustained. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submissions and case law cited before us. Admittedly, the assessee failed to file the return of income in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish a return of income as required under section 139(1) of the provisions before the end of the relevant assessment year and further notices issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2019 remained uncomplied. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the explanation furnished by the appellant assessee regarding non-filing the return of income in time required u/s 139(1) of the Act has no merits and the assessee failed to controvert the AO’s contentions with passing a speaking order on merits. Thus, the ld. 4 ITA Nos. 80 & 86/Asr/2024 Palwinder Singh v. ITO CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty in arbitrary manner without discussing the merits of the case and addressing the submissions of the appellant and even deciding the quantum appeal pending before him for adjudication. The case law relied upon by the assessee as above are distinguishable on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the notices have been served on the brother of the assessee as discussed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 5. In view of that matter, we consider it deem fit to remand back the matter of penalty u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh along with the quantum appeal on merits of the case after considering the explanations furnished by the assessee regarding the reasons for non furnishing of return and non-compliance of a statutory notices issued by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee while adjudicating the appeals on the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) for the year under consideration while verifying the veracity of the material evidence filed on record as per the mandate. At the same time, the appellant-assessee shall co-operate in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 5 ITA Nos. 80 & 86/Asr/2024 Palwinder Singh v. ITO 6. Accordingly, the penalty matters u/s 271F and 271(1)(b) is restored back to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication as per law. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.09.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order