KANDASAMY RAMESHKUMAR,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-2(4), SALEM

ITA 3156/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Kandasamy Rameshkumar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed a penalty of Rs. 2,94,923 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposed by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance. The assessee argued that the penalty was confirmed without proper opportunity to present his case. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard and thus remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107158 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी जॉज\u001c जॉज\u001c क े, उपा \u001e\u001f एवं \u0019ी एस. आर. रघुना था , लेखा सद+ क े सम\u001f BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3156/Chny/2024 िनधा \u001cरण वष\u001c /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kandasamy Rameshkumar, 8/1-33-B, Salem Main Road, Pudusampalli, Mettur Dam, Salem-636403. [PAN: AHGPR 2263R] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Salem. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b\tयथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीला थH की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA JKथH की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवा ई की ता रीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोषणा की ता रीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.09.2024 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] and pertains to assessment year 2014-15, where the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 26.06.2019. ITA No.3156/Chny/2024 :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the penalty of Rs. 2,94,923/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing the proper opportunity to the assessee, and therefore, it is requested that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC has given enough opportunities before passing the order on 18.09.2024 and hence, the order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC may please be confirmed. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.2,94,923/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed by the A.O due to the non-compliance of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that the ITA No.3156/Chny/2024 :- 3 -: Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without participation of the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and to be diligent in submitting the relevant details for the adjudication of the case as and when called for. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज\u001c जॉज\u001c क े) (George George K) उपा \u001e\u001f / Vice President (एस. आर. रघुना था ) (S.R. Raghunatha) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 20th February, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल\u001cप अ\u001dे\u001cषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b\tथ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF "