2022 (12) TMI 1346 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty order under Income Tax Act overturned by ITAT due to lack of representation.

M/s Mannat Motors (India) Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-40 (3) New Delhi

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to lack of assessee representation and failure to provide ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition by way of Trading addition as (undisclosed profit on sales out of books) and addition made u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- We do not have the benefit of examination of the factual and legal submissions of the assessee side by the Assessing Officer and by the learned CIT(A). Further, we find that assessee has expressed the grievance that reasonable opportunities were not provided by the learned CIT(A) and by the AO which was not disputed by the learned Sr. DR for Revenue. We set aside the impugned appellate order dated 29/03/2016 of the learned CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us, to the file of the AO, with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with aforesaid directions. Assessee appeal is partly allowed. Issues:Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Non-representation of assessee before Assessing Officer and CIT(A) - Reasonable opportunity not provided - Arithmetical error in computation of concealed income.Analysis:(A) Appeal against Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c):The appeal was filed against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,75,355/- based on the confirmation of additions by the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal challenged the imposition of penalty without establishing concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant contended that no clear finding was recorded by the AO regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AR of the assessee argued that there was an arithmetical error in the computation of concealed income. It was noted that both the order by the Assessing Officer and the appellate order by the CIT(A) were ex-parte, with no representation from the assessee's side. The AR highlighted that reasonable opportunities were not provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A).(A.1) Non-representation of Assessee:During the proceedings before the ITAT, it was acknowledged that there was no representation from the assessee's side in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The AR for the assessee emphasized that reasonable opportunities were not granted to the assessee by the authorities. The learned Sr. DR for Revenue did not dispute this submission and suggested setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the issue of penalty back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.(A.2) Decision by ITAT:Considering the lack of representation from the assessee's side and the failure to provide reasonable opportunities during the proceedings, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all the disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer. The direction was given to pass a denovo order in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, all grounds of appeal were disposed of in alignment with the above directions.(B) Partial Allowance of Appeal:For statistical purposes, the appeal was partly allowed by the ITAT. The decision was pronounced orally on 22nd November 2022 in the Open Court and the written order was signed on 28th November 2022.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of appeal against the penalty order, non-representation of the assessee, and the decision by the ITAT, providing a detailed overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes.