MADANGOPAL RAMKUMAR SIKAWAT,SURAT V. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), SURAT., SURAT

ITA 918/SRT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-2014. The penalty was initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) following an assessment under section 147 read with section 144, which added a significant amount to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of substantial justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786137 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY UKE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH C. SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat, 11-1572, Radhakrishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Majuragate, Surat-395007. PAN NO. AWGPS 7288 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh C. Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-2014, raising following grounds: 1. The Ld AO was not justifying in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same 2. The Ld AO was not justıfying in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs 9,55,042/-, also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. Printed from counselvise.com 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income 1961(hereinafter referred to as 30.03.2022, wherein the of ₹30,90,752/- to the total income of the assessee. Consequent to such addition, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 2.1 Subsequently, a the assessee on 05.08.2022 as to why penalty under s However, no compliance was made by the assessee to the said notice. Consequently, the AO proceeded to levy penalty vide order dated 22.09.2022. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) referred to as “the CIT(A)” course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the multiple notices issued by the details of such notices, as recorded in paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order, are reproduced below for ready reference: S.No. Date of Notice issued 1. 13.04.2023 2. 14.10.2024 3. 13.05.2024 4. 13.06.2025 ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 Madangopal Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed section 147 read with section 144 of the Income (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) vide order dated , wherein the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition to the total income of the assessee. Consequent to such addition, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Subsequently, a detailed show-cause notice was issued to 05.08.2022, providing an opportunity to explain as to why penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be levied. However, no compliance was made by the assessee to the said notice. Consequently, the AO proceeded to levy penalty vide order Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) “the CIT(A)”]. The record reveals that during the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the multiple notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). tices, as recorded in paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order, are reproduced below for ready reference: Date of compliance Remarks Notices sent to Mailids 27.04.2023 No reply [e-mail] 21.10.2024 Adjournment -do- 28.05.2024 Adjournment -do- 20.06.2025 -do- ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 2 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessment in the case of the assessee was completed section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, ) vide order dated made an addition to the total income of the assessee. Consequent to such addition, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under the Act, alleging concealment of particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. was issued to providing an opportunity to explain ection 271(1)(c) should not be levied. However, no compliance was made by the assessee to the said notice. Consequently, the AO proceeded to levy penalty vide order Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the sioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter ]. The record reveals that during the course of the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not respond The relevant tices, as recorded in paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order, are reproduced below for ready reference: Notices sent to Mailids [e-mail] Printed from counselvise.com 2.3 Despite repeated opportunities, no effective compliance was made. Accordingly, the upheld the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. the assessee submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices earlier due to certain genuine and unavoidable circumstances. It was further submitted that the assessee is now willing and prepared to explanations, and evidences to substantiate that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel raise additional legal grounds challenging Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings and, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted by remitting the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) 3.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities, contending that adequate opportunities were already granted and that the assessee failed to avail the same. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on position that the Ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 Madangopal Despite repeated opportunities, no effective compliance was made. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused rial on record. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices earlier due to certain genuine and unavoidable circumstances. It was further submitted that the assessee is now willing and prepared to furnish all necessary documents, explanations, and evidences to substantiate that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law. Ld. Counsel also stated that the assessee wishes to raise additional legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the in initiating penalty proceedings and, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted by remitting the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities, contending that adequate opportunities were already granted and that the assessee failed to avail the same. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 3 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat Despite repeated opportunities, no effective compliance was dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused Ld. Counsel for submitted that the assessee could not respond to the notices earlier due to certain genuine and unavoidable circumstances. It was further submitted that the assessee is now furnish all necessary documents, explanations, and evidences to substantiate that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law. also stated that the assessee wishes to jurisdiction of the in initiating penalty proceedings and, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity be granted by remitting the on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities, contending that adequate opportunities were already granted and that the We have carefully considered the rival submissions and record. It is an undisputed has dismissed the appeal for non- Printed from counselvise.com compliance without examining the co case due to non compliance on the part of assessee. 4.1 Having regard to the totality of facts and guid principles of substantial justice that the ends of justice would be best served if the assessee is afforded one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). 4.2 In the light of the foregoing discussio justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to impugned order of the with a direction to decide the appeal consideration the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee and after affording her an opportunity of being heard 4.3 We clarify that the assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings before the adjournments. The CIT(A) speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including any legal grounds that the assessee may raise. 4.4 Accordingly, the are allowed for statistical purposes ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 Madangopal compliance without examining the contentions or merits of the case due to non compliance on the part of assessee. Having regard to the totality of facts and guid substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be best served if the assessee is afforded one more opportunity to present her case before the In the light of the foregoing discussion, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to set aside impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)andrestore the matter to his file with a direction to decide the appeal de novo, after taking into consideration the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee and after affording her an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. We clarify that the assessee shall cooperate in the before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall not seek unwarranted CIT(A), in turn, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including any legal grounds that the assessee may raise. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 4 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat ntentions or merits of the case due to non compliance on the part of assessee. Having regard to the totality of facts and guided by the , we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be best served if the assessee is afforded one more opportunity to present her case before the Ld. n, and in the interest of set aside the restore the matter to his file , after taking into consideration the submissions and evidences that may be furnished by the assessee and after affording her an adequate We clarify that the assessee shall cooperate in the and shall not seek unwarranted in turn, shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, dealing with all contentions raised, including any raised by the assessee Printed from counselvise.com 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30/10/2025. Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 30/10/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. (on Tour) Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 Madangopal In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for ounced under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rule Sd/- Sd/ (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat ITA No. 918/SRT/2025 5 Madangopal Ramkumar Sikawat In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for under Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rule, 1963 Sd/- PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Surat Printed from counselvise.com "