VIJAYKUMAR SHREEVISHNU TOSHNIWAL,AKOLA V. .ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

ITA 314/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had dismissed his appeal due to a delay in filing. The assessee contested the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 18,29,040, claiming it was unjustified and without any concealment of income. The Tribunal found that although there was a delay in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, the matter should be reconsidered on its merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to provide a fair hearing and adjudicate based on the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24260 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHORE P. DEWANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.314/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2016–17) Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal Akanksha Banglow, Mahesh Colony Behind Dental College, Gourakshan Road Akola 444 004 PAN – AAAHV6077N ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Akola ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 03/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. Captioned appeal by the assessee against the impugned order dated 21/03/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay even though sufficient cause for delay was placed on record. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay considering facts and evidence on record and adjudicated the appeal on merits. 2 Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal ITA no.314/Nag./2024 4.3 The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. No video conferencing is allowed even though specific request was made in written submission uploaded on 20/01/2024. 5. The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.18,29,040/-is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 6. The learned A.O. erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs. 18,29,040/- without there being any concealment of income at the hands of assessee. 7. The levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.18,29,040/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8. The show cause notice issued without specifying the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be imposed is bad in law and consequent penalty levied thereupon is liable to be cancelled. 9. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal before him. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues raised on merit and in accordance with law and to enable the assessee to substantiate its case. 4. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not furnished Affidavit explaining the delay before the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the 3 Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal ITA no.314/Nag./2024 belated appeal filed by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves one opportunity to establish its case before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file for denovo adjudication on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file Affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by adducing proper evidence. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before adjudication of issues on merit. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024 Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 12/12/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "