Income Tax Commissioner adjudicates Penalty Order instead of Re-assessment Order: ITAT Remands Sale Consideration Challenge for Reconsideration [Read Order]
The ITAT observed that while the assessee had challenged the reassessment order, the CIT(A) had inadvertently affirmed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, which was not contested. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on the relevant assessment issues.
Penalty - order - Taxscan
Penalty - order - Taxscan
The Nagpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the sale consideration matter to the Commissioner, as it had adjudicated the penalty order instead of the re-assessment order.
In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), has made the additions of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on account of long-term capital gain’ and Rs. 17.77 lakhs on account of ‘difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation’ under Section. 50C of the Act.
The assessee Chandrakant Gajanan Paradhi being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Commissioner. Despite affording various opportunities, the assessee made no compliance and, therefore, the Commissioner by considering the material available on record and in the constrained circumstances, decided to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. He affirmed the AO’s action levying a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The assessee drew attention of the Tribunal to the ultimate findings arrived at by the Commissioner in the impugned order, wherein it was specifically mentioned by the Commissioner “Hence, the AO’s action levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the present case is hereby confirmed and the sale ground of appeal is dismissed on merit also”.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee before the Commissioner had challenged the re-assessment order dated 30/03/2022 by the AO but not the penalty order, but the commissioner made a mistake, the Commissioner affirmed the AO’s action levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The single bench of Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) held that it would be proper to remand the instant case to the file of the Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus, the case is, accordingly, remanded to the file of Commissioner for decision afresh.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
