USHA SINGH,BAREILLY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 379/LKW/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Usha Singh, a former Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari in Bareilly, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which dismissed her appeal due to non-compliance. The original dispute arose from the Income Tax Officer's (ITO) assessment for the year 2016-17, where Singh's declared income of Rs. 2,94,270 was significantly increased to Rs. 22,36,300, leading to a penalty for concealing income. The ITAT Lucknow Bench decided to restore the case to the NFAC, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and compliance with natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396427 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Pankaj Kumar Gupta Vs ITO, ITA No. 486/LKW/2016 ITAT Lucknow
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.379/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Usha Singh 201/7, Doctors Colony Civil Lines Bareilly v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3) Bareilly TAN/PAN:AUWPS0658J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 28 05 2025 Date of pronouncement: 29 05 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was working as Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Bareilly and was earning income from salary and interest from Bank. During the year under consideration, the assessee had filed return of income, declaring a total income of Rs.2,94,270/- and the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.22,36,300/- after making addition of Rs.19,67,333/-. The AO, vide separate order dated ITA No.379/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 29.05.2019, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, held that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income amounting to Rs.19,67,33/- and accordingly sought to evade tax to the tune of Rs.5,08,874/-. The AO, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs.5,09,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, additions by the Ld. AO as confirmed by the CI'T(A) is bad in law, the order of CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty without giving opportunity of being heard which is against the principal of natural justice, renders the order of Ld. CIT(A) bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 3. Because, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case it is the settled principal of law that where no appeal has been filed against the assessment order and due taxes were paid then penalty should not be imposed renders order of penalty passed by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be quashed. ITA No.379/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 4 Pankaj Kumar Gupta Vs ITO, ITA No. 486/LKW/2016 ITAT Lucknow 4. The humble assessee, craves for leave to add/amend any other ground with the prior permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. None was present for the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. 6. Since the order passed by NFAC was an ex-parte order, the ld. Senior D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the NFAC. 7. We have heard the ld. Senior Departmental Representative and have also perused the material on record. It is evident that the order passed by the NFAC is an ex-parte order qua the assessee. Looking into the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, we restore this file to the Office of the NFAC with the direction to hear the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the NFAC in the set-aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the NFAC would be at complete ITA No.379/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 4 liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:29/05/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO "