PREM NARAYAN PATIDAR,BHOPAL V. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

ITA 264/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Prem Narayan Patidar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi, which itself arose from a penalty order by the ITO, Ward-2(4), Bhopal under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed following an addition of Rs. 1,02,80,602 as long-term capital gain in the assessment year 2012-13. The CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal due to non-compliance with the advance tax payment requirement under section 249(4)(b), leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35274 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"sraey stiivte often, sé =aenite, sak IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ‘AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 264/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Prem Narayan Patidar, CIT(A), NFAG/ 1, Radha Krishna Sadan, ITO ~ 2(4), Bhopal Hosangabad Road, aaa Mistod Vs. (Assessea/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AHBPP8855A Assesses by | None Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing _ 10.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement @: Je Seay aI/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeat-order dated 90.01.2024 passed by leamed ‘Gommissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [CIT(AY] which in turn arises out of penatty-order dated 25.06.2019 passed by leamed ITO, Ward-2(4), Bhopal TAO'] us 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [he Act\" for Assossment-Year TAY] 2012-13, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: (o— Page 1 of 4 Prem Narayan Patidar ITA No. 264/ind/2024 ~ A.¥. 2012-13 \"1, That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that appeal filed by assessee cannot be admitted for hearing invoking erroneously provisions of section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1964 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing appela of assesses.” 2. When the case was called none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application filed despite notice of hearing having been given to assessee. The case was passed over and taken at the end of Board but still there ‘was no presence of assesses. Ld. DR for revenue wa , however, ready to make submissions. Therefore, the hearing is proceeded and the matter is being decided on the basis of details focuments held on record. 3. The facis as can be culled out from decurnents held in case fle are such that the AO passed assessmentorder on 19.12.2016 u/s 147/143(3) atter making an addition of Rs. 1,02,80,602I- on account of long-lerm capital gain. The AO also imposod a penalty of Rs. 21,13,000!- equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on impugned addltion of Re. 1,02,80,602!- treating the came as representing concealed income. Aggrioved, the assessee carried matter in frst-appeal. 4, During frst-appecl, tho CIT(A) apprehended that the assessee had filed frst- appeal before him without meking payment of advanco-tax as required by section 249(4)(0). Further, on porusal of Form No. 35 (Appeal Memo of fst-appeal) fled by assessee, the CIT(A) observed thatthe assessee has mentioned “Not Applicable against Column No, 9 asking for compliance of section 249(4)(b). Therefore, the CITA) asked assessee to intimate whether it has made payment of advance-tax but the assessee failed to file any response which led the CIT(A) to pas exparle order = Page 2 of 4 Pram Narayan Patidar ITA No. 264/ind/2024 ~ AY. 2012-18 dismissing appeal of assessee treating the same as non-admissible In terms of section 249(4) and therefore infructuous. 5. Aggtieved by order of CIT(A), the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 6. On porusal of Grounds taken by assessee, we find thet the assessee is leiming that the CIT(A) was not justified in eroneously invoking the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act and dismissing assossce's fst-appeal. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed asesseee'sfirstappeal for want of explanation from assessee qua the requirement of seetion 248(4)(b). Therefore, inthe interest of justice, we feel it appropriate to give one more opportunity to assessoe to oxplain his caso before CITIA). Accordingly, wo restore this matter at the level of CIT(A) for adjudieation afresh after giving necessary opportunities to assessou. Tho assessee Is also ted to file his proper response to CIT(A) failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to take an appropriate view in accordance with law. 7. Resultantly, thls appeal Is allowed for statistical purpose. Onor pronounced in open court on FZ. 4/2024 (VIJAY PAL RAO) ois L—— QSODICIAL MEMBER Indore fester Dated: [¢..J.fo.12024 Rope eile Page 3 of 4 Caples to: ay (@ @ (a) @ © Prom Narayan Patidar ITA No, 264/ind/2024 ~ A,¥, 2012-13 The appellant The respondent cr cma) Departmental Representative Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appeliate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Page 4 of 4 "