SHANKAR TRADERS ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), KALYAN

ITA 3512/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shankar Traders appealing against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income amounting to Rs.12,08,649 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer on 25.05.2017 and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the Assessee's failure to comply with notices and provide necessary documents. The Tribunal noted the Assessee's absence and non-compliance in previous hearings, possibly due to miscommunication, and decided to remand the case for a fresh decision to ensure fair adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33789 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAYANA KRISHNAKUMAR; LD.
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3512/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Shankar Traders, 1 Yogesh Niketan, Poona Link Road Kolsawadi, Kalyan, Maharashtra- 421301 PAN: ABPFS5103E Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Nayana Krishnakumar, Ld. Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 28 . 08 .2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28 . 11 .2024 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 14.05.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Though notice for the date of hearing on 28.08.2024 was sent to the Assessee, however, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee nor filed any adjournment. Therefore, we are constrained to decide this appeal by passing this ex-parte order. 3. In the instant case the penalty to the tune of Rs.373472/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied for furnishing inaccurate particular of ITA No.3512/M/2024 M/s. Shankar Traders 2 income to the extent of Rs.12,08,649/- vide order dated 25.05.2017 by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the levy of penalty by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording various opportunities failed to comply with the notices sent and eventually has not filed any reply/documents in support of its claim and therefore in the constraint circumstances the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by upholding the levy of penalty. 5. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It appears from the impugned order that the Assessee had challenged the penalty order dated 25.05.2017 by filing appeal before the Ld. Commissioner on 26.06.2017 which was taken into consideration only on 17.05.2019, thereafter during Covid-19 period and thereafter after a gap of four years on 16.01.2024, 02.04.2024 & 01.05.2024 and therefore it can be presumed that may be due to miscommunication or non communication of the notices the Assessee remained unrepresented/uncomplied with. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality as the issue involved in the instant appeal remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim. Thus the case is remanded accordingly. 6. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. ITA No.3512/M/2024 M/s. Shankar Traders 3 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28.11.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "