TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and trading in bio agricultural products and filed its return of income on 11.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.36,72,970/-. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) on 29.5.2021 determining the total income at Rs.74,02,698/-. During the course of assessement proceedings the Assessing Officer had noted that the assessee has under reported/misreported certain items for which the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice was issued to the assessee asking it to explain as to why the penalty u/s 270A o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d penalty of Rs.22,78,444/- u/s 270A of the Act, the details of which are as under: 4. Since the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT (A) NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the learned CIT (A) NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the learned CIT (A) NFAC had not granted proper opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies granted, the learned CIT (A) NFAC, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd (381 ITD 320), the decision of the Hon'ble M.P High Court in the case Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. From the perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC we find learned CIT (A) NFAC had issued notice on 17.05.2022, however, there was no compliance. On the next date of hearing on 6.7.2023, the assessee filed an application for adjournment and the matter was adjourned 23.07.2023 and again there was also non-compliance for which the learned CIT (A) NFAC ....