MANI POLYBAGS,VIRUDHUNAGAR V. .ITO, WARD-3, VIRUDHUNAGAR

ITA 2711/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Mani Polybags, a firm, which appealed against the penalty imposed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Virudhunagar. The penalty was initially set at Rs.1,87,932 due to underreporting of income for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee did not appeal the original assessment order but contested the penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee in responding to notices. The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36167 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: V. RAJASEKARAN; C.A
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,‘सी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी जगदȣश, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2711/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year:2017-18 M/s. Mani Polybags, 3/158, Kullurchandai Road Allampatti, Virudhunagar – 626 123. PAN: AAUFM 7313E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Virudhunagar. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Rajasekaran, C.A (Through Virtual Mode) ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2024 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - NFAC order dated 23.08.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. - 2 - ITA No.2711/CHNY/2024 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a firm. For the assessment year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.35,420/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 07.12.2019 estimating total income at Rs.12,51,808/-. The assessee did not file appeal against the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and the entire demand raised was paid. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act. The AO imposed penalty u/s.270A of the Act on 17.03.2020 amounting to Rs.1,87,932/-. 3. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty u/s.270A of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued four notices directing the assessee to furnish details / submissions, which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty u/s.270A of the Act amounting to Rs.1,87,932/-, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The - 3 - ITA No.2711/CHNY/2024 ld.AR on merits submitted that CIT(A) has not examined the details of additions made by AO in the assessment order. It was submitted that the additions made will not come under the purview of underreporting. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority remained non-compliant since the hearing notices were never received in physical form to the assessee’s address. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee firm may be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case and prayed for restoring the issue raised in this appeal to the files of the CIT(A). 5. The ld.DR supported the order of the AO imposing penalty and the CIT(A) order confirming the same. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The Office of the First Appellate Authority had issued four hearing notices. However, the same was not complied by the assessee firm. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the office of the CIT(A). However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent its case. Accordingly, the issues raised in - 4 - ITA No.2711/CHNY/2024 this appeal are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th December, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदȣश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 19th December, 2024 RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Madurai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "