2021 (5) TMI 797 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT remands case to CIT (A) for comprehensive review

Shri Jagdish Manilal Patel Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat.

The ITAT Surat allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the case back to the CIT (A) to decide on all grounds of appeal on merit in ... Ex-party order passed by CIT-A - Penalty levied u/s 271AAB - during the search action assessee accepted unaccounted income in respect of LTCG - HELD THAT:- As assessee did not make any compliance to various show cause notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) as recorded in para 5 of the impugned order. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that there is non-compliance on the part of the assessee. Before, us assessee undertook to be vigilant and to appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We, instead of going into controversy, whether the assessee defaulted in attending the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). We find that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeals), decision therein on and reasons for such decision. Appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to decide all the grounds of appeal on merit in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) as and when the date of hearing and to provide all necessary evidence and information without any further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reasons. Accordingly the grounds of appeal by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:Appeal against orders of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-4, Surat for AY 2013-14 regarding penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act on unaccounted income and long term capital gain accepted during a search action.Analysis:1. The appellant raised grounds of appeal challenging the dismissal of the appeal without adjudication on merits, confirming the penalty under section 271AAB, and questioning the levy of penalty for deemed income. The appellant contended that the CIT (A) did not appreciate the facts and evidence presented, leading to an ex-parte order without serving notice.2. The search action on the assessee revealed unaccounted income and long term capital gain, resulting in penalty initiation under section 271AAB by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was upheld by the CIT (A), prompting the appellant to appeal before the ITAT Surat. The appellant argued that the CIT (A) failed to consider the facts and various decisions supporting the case.3. During the hearing, the ITAT Surat noted that the CIT (A) recorded non-compliance by the appellant with show cause notices, leading to an ex-parte order. The appellant's representative cited a change in address as a reason for non-compliance, but failed to provide satisfactory explanations or documentation. The ITAT Surat observed discrepancies in the addresses mentioned in the appeal forms.4. The ITAT Surat directed the appellant to provide correct contact details and address, emphasizing the importance of attending hearings without default. While the Revenue argued for upholding the CIT (A)'s decision due to non-compliance, the ITAT Surat focused on the legal mandate for the CIT (A) to decide appeals on merit with proper reasoning.5. Ultimately, the ITAT Surat found the CIT (A)'s order not in accordance with the legal requirements under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded back to the CIT (A) to decide on all grounds of appeal on merit in compliance with the law.6. The ITAT Surat emphasized the appellant's duty to appear before the CIT (A) for hearings, provide necessary evidence, and refrain from seeking adjournments without valid reasons. The decision to restore the appeal back to the CIT (A) was made to ensure a proper consideration of all grounds on merit, as required by law.7. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was announced during a virtual court hearing on 24th May 2021.