Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
28-11-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
26-11-2024
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
27-05-2024
Judgement Text
" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nDIVISION BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH \n \nBEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAY, VICE PRESIDENT & \nSHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n \nआयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 658/CHD/2024 \nǓनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 \n \nPrince Kalra, \nHouse No.119, Patiala Gate, \nSangrur, \nDistt.Sangrur \n \nVs. \n बनाम \n \nDCIT, \nJurisdictional officer, \nThe ITO, \nWard, \nSangrur \n \nèथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BURPK0672E \nअपीलाथȸ/Appellant \n \nĤ×यथȸ/Respondent \n \n& \nआयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1127/CHD/2024 \nǓनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 \n \nPrince Kalra, \nHouse No.119, Patiala Gate, \nSangrur, \nDistt.Sangrur \n \nVs. \n बनाम \n \nDCIT, \nJurisdictional officer, \nThe ITO, \nWard, \nSangrur \n \nèथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: BURPK0672E \nअपीलाथȸ/Appellant \n \nĤ×यथȸ/Respondent \n \n \nǓनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate \n राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr.DR \n \nसुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing \n \n: \n26.11.2024 \nउदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : \n28.11.2024 \n \n \n\n \n \n658 & 1127 -Chd-2024- \n \n Prince Kalra, Sangrur \n \n \n \n 2 \n \nआदेश/Order \nPer Bench: \n \nThe Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the \norder of the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.3.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. \n2. \nThough the Assessee has taken 06 grounds of appeal but his \ngrievance revolves around with single issue namely that the ld. CIT(A) \nhas erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 46,26,020/- which was \nadded by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) with the aid of section 68 on \naccount of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account. \n3. \nWith the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone \nthrough the record carefully. A perusal of the record would indicate \nthat both the orders are ex-parte. The Assessee has filed his return of \nincome on 8.10.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,88,380/-. It is \nnot ascertainable whether the case of the Assessee was selected for \nscrutiny assessment or not. The case of the Assessee was reopened by \nissuance of a notice dated 30.03.2019 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, \n1961 (in short 'the Act'). Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act \nwere issued which according to the Assessee could not be served on \nhim and the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte assessment. \n4. \nThe appeal of the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the \nAssessee. The ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal \nof the Assessee for want of prosecution. \n\n \n \n658 & 1127 -Chd-2024- \n \n Prince Kalra, Sangrur \n \n \n \n 3 \n \n5. \nOn due consideration of the above facts and circumstances, \nwe are of the view that addition of Rs. 46,46,020/- was made by way \nof an ex-parte assessment which has also been upheld by way of an \nex-parte order at the end of the ld. CIT(A). The ends of justice would \nmeet if we set aside both these orders to the file of the ld. Assessing \nOfficer for re-adjudication because sub clause 6 of section 250 do \ncontemplate that the ld. CIT(A) has to determine the point in dispute \nand thereafter record reasons on those points. This procedure has not \nbeen followed in the present case. If the dispute is being set aside to \nthe file of the CIT(A) then it would increase the multiplicity of litigation \nbecause assessment order was ex-parte and CIT(A) would have to call \nfor a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the material to be \nsubmitted by the Assessee; Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set \naside the issued to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh \nadjudication. Accordingly, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed \nfor statistical purposes. \n \nITA No.1127/Chd/2024: \n6. \nThis appeal is also directed by the Assessee against the order \nof the ld. CIT(A) dated 31.03.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. The \nAssessee has challenged levy of penalty u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the \nIncome Tax Act. The grievance of the Assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has \nerred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 13,40,527/-. It is pertinent to \n\n \n \n658 & 1127 -Chd-2024- \n \n Prince Kalra, Sangrur \n \n \n \n 4 \n \nnote that this penalty is being computed on the quantum addition of \nRs. 46,46,020/-. This addition has already been set aside by us in ITA \nNo. 658/Chd/2024. Therefore, penalty does not have any foundation \nto stand. We deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders, i.e., \nAssessing Officer as well as of CIT(A) vide which penalty was levied \nand confirmed. We restore this issue also to the file of the A.O. Ld. \nA.O. shall re-adjudicate this issue after determination of income of the \nAssessee in the quantum proceedings. It is for the Assessing Officer to \nvisit the Assessee with the penalty or not after the determination of \ntaxable income of the Assessee. \n7. \nIn the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical \npurposes. \nOrder pronounced on 28.11.2024 \n \n \nSd/- \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \n ( KRINWANT SAHAY ) \n \n \n ( RAJPAL YADAV ) \n \n Accountant Member \n \n \n \n Vice President \n“आर.क\nे.” \nआदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : \n1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant \n2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent \n3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT \n4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, \nCHANDIGARH \n5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File \n \nआदेशानुसार/ By order, \nसहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar \n"
Mehul