2025 (1) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irming the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.271(1)(b) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee had originally filed his return of income on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 75,55,050/-. The Assessing Officer passed the order u/sec.143(3) on 25.10.2018 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, on realizing that certain errors have crept in the return filed while computing the capital gain, the assessee filed a revision petition u/sec.264 of the Act before the PCIT. The PCIT considered the said petition of the assessee and set aside the order passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer to compute the income as per the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder passed u/sec.144 r.w.s.264 of the Act determined the same income i.e., Rs. 75,55,050/-. It is also an admitted fact that the two statutory notices u/sec.142(1) of the Act were issued by the Assessing Officer on 07.03.2021 and 17.03.2021 respectively, which were during the Covid period, for which, the assessee has a 'reasonable cause' for not appearing before the Assessing Officer. We find due to non submission to the statutory notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A), he passed an ex-parte order sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that adequate opportunity of hearing was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) and since the e- portal was not functioning, therefore, the assess....