2023 (4) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and not justified because Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal simply on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant without appreciating the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), where it has been held that law does not empower Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in upholding the order of penalty passed initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act ignoring the fact that the search has been conducted on appellant on 26.04.2010 and therefore the order of penalty has to be initiated and passed u/s 271AAA of IT Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue, non-communicative and thus non speaking defeating the purpose of notice. 6. The AO has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty of Rs.3,60,646/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of IT Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealing particulars of income as wells as by applying Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of IT Act ignoring the fact that the addition in the quantum proceedings have been confirmed on estimate basis by substituting the rate of commission on accommodation entries by the authorities at higher rate. The rejection of the explanation in support of the rate of commission declared by the appellant is merely based on the presumption not on any material or evidence on records. 7. The AO both in facts and in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llate order dated 14/12/2016. At the time of hearing before us on 22/03/2023, none was present on behalf of the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee's side, we have heard the Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue. (B.1) We find from the perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 14/12/2016 of Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine, taking adverse view of noncompliance with notices of hearing issued by office of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in a summary manner, for non-compliance with the notices of hearing, under the presumption that the assessee had nothing to appeal against the additions made by Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he decision thereon and the reason for the decision. [(6A) In every appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed before him under sub-section (1) of section 246A (7) On the disposal of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall communicate the order passed by him to the assessee and to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner." (B.1.1) A perusal of the above provisions of law shows that U/s 250(6) of I.T. Act, the Ld. CIT(A) was obliged to dispose off the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and to then pass an order....