MOHD HUSAIN,MURAR MAU SARENI, LALGANJ V. ITO -01 RAEBARELI-NEW, RAEBARELI

ITA 628/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mohd Husain Murar, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The penalty amounting to Rs.3,34,447 was initially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in an order dated 21/02/2023. The appellant argued that he was not provided a reasonable opportunity to present his case, as the notices were sent via email despite his request to avoid this method of communication. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the lack of proper communication and opportunity, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 43565 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANU CHAURASIA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHILESH PRATAP SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.628/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.628/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 Mohd Husain Murar Mau Sareni Lalganj, Raebareli. PAN:AFZPH2784J Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Raebareli-New Raebareli (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.628/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 21/02/2023 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1049955530(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) This appeal pertains to penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) amounting to Rs.3,34,447/-, vide order dated 21/09/2022 (DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2022-23/1045792437(1). The appeal against the aforesaid order dated 21/09/2022 was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 21/02/2023. Present appeal has been filed Appellant by Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, FCA Respondent by Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT (D.R.) I.T.A. No.628/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 by the assessee in aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 21/02/2023 of learned CIT(A). (B.1) At the time of hearing before us, learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity by the learned CIT(A). He further submitted that the assessee, while filing Form- 35, has specifically requested that the notices/communication be not sent on e-mail. However, the notice was given by the learned CIT(A) through e- mail. He also submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) is not a speaking order. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer had passed the aforesaid order dated 21/09/2022 u/s 270A of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In view of these submissions, the learned A.R. for the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute regarding imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to this request made on behalf of the assessee by learned A.R. for the assessee. (C) We have heard both sides and perused the materials on record. We find that the assessee had opted out for receiving notices through e-mail communicating in Form-35 filed in the office of the learned CIT(A). Despite this, the learned CIT(A) issued notices to the appellant assessee through e- mail. We also find that the learned CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee for making compliance. On perusal of record, it is found that the learned CIT(A) issued two notices dated 06/02/2023 and 15/02/2023 and thereafter hurriedly passed the impugned appellate order dated 21/02/2023. We also find that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee while passing aforesaid order dated I.T.A. No.628/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 21/09/2022 u/s 270A of the Act whereby he imposed penalty of Rs.3,34,447/-. In view of the foregoing, and as learned D.R. expressed no objection to this, the dispute regarding imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 21/02/2023 of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the issue in dispute is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (D) In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:25/02/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) By Order Assistant Registrar "