The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] after non-compliance with statutory notices led to penalties and additions for unexplained cash deposits.
Mauli Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit,appellant-assessee, was reassessed for not filing a return and depositing ₹4.67 crore in banks and cooperative societies. Due to non-response to notices, the Assessing Officer(AO) finalized the assessment under Section 147, read with Sections 144 and 144B, determining the income at ₹4.67 crore. A penalty of ₹40,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(b), and ₹1.44 crore under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
As there was no response to the notices, CIT(A) upheld the AO’s additions and confirmed the penalties under Sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) in an ex-parte order.
The assessee’s counsel stated that due to a change in email ID, the notices were not received, preventing any response. It was requested that the assessee be given a chance to present the case before the AO or CIT(A).
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
In response, the revenue counsel cited the orders of the AO and CIT(A), asserting that the assessee’s conduct did not justify restoring the appeals. It was argued that the additions and penalties upheld by CIT(A) should stand.
The two member bench comprising Vinay Bhamore(Judicial Member) and Rama Kanta Panda(Vice President) considered the submissions and the available material. It was acknowledged that due to non-response to notices, the AO made an addition of ₹4,67,62,590 for unexplained cash deposits and levied penalties of ₹40,000 and ₹1,44,49,640.
Despite four opportunities, the assessee failed to submit any response, leading to ex-parte dismissal of the appeals. The counsel explained that the notices were missed due to a change in email ID and requested an opportunity to present the case.
In the interest of justice, the tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to CIT(A),directing the assessee to submit details on the hearing date without seeking adjournments. If the assessee failed to comply, CIT(A) was allowed to pass an appropriate order.
In conclusion,the ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
