TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 30,000/-: The ld. CIT erred in law as well as on the facts in confirming the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of Rs. 30,000/-. The penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be deleted in full. 3. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 2.1 The following additional grounds of appeal are raised, as under: "4. The impugned penalty order dated 27.03.2019 is a nullity being non-est and must be considered as never passed in as much as no DIN number has been generated as per the prescribed procedure, which is in violation of the binding instructions of CBDT and hence, the impugned assessment order may kindly be held as non-est and may kindly be quashed. 5. The impugned penalty order passed u/s 272A(1)(c) r.w.s 274 dated 27.03.2019 is nullity and being without jurisdiction in as much as the said order has not been signed digitally as per the prescribed procedure, which is in violation of the binding instructions of CBDT and hence, the impugned assessment order may kindly be held as non-est and may kindly be quashed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for non compliance of summons did not give any reason for non compliance but only filed a copy of letter addressed to ADIT(Inv.)-1, Jaipur dated 11/05/2018 along with copy of retraction petition. No specific reply for non compliance of summons was found to have been furnished in his reply. 4. The ld. Addl. DIT(Investigation), Jaipur further noted that Shri Deepak Kumar Samtani had been deliberately and knowingly making non-compliances to summons issued by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Jaipur, and had also not furnished satisfactory reply in response to penalty show-cause notice dated 20/08/2018, and, therefore penalty was imposed for non- compliance of summons u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for each default and failure to compliance for each of default for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, u/s 272(A)(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Addl. DIT (Investigation), Jaipur, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: "5.2.3 From the above facts narrated, it is very clear that the appellant was doing Hawala business and various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance of the summon issued. In response, the assessee appeared and submitted his reply vide letter dated 27.08.2018 along with copy of retraction petition filed. The ld. AO however not feeling satisfied, with the submissions of the assessee, imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- (3 summons * 10,000 for each default). 3. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order, holding that "the appellant was mandatorily expected to attend the summons and should cooperative in investigation" Hence this appeal. Submission: GOA 2: The imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) of Rs. 30,000/- is totally contrary to the provisions of law: 1. At the outset, the reason for non-attendance / non-compliance is as below: Notice Dated Date of Attendance Time to Respond Details Remark 30.03.2018 31.03.2018 Less than 24 hours Notice served on email. 1st Time notice received on email. Very short time given. 03.04.2018 04.04.2018 Less than 24 hours Received by his wife, who sought adjournment vide email dated 04.04.2018. Sought adjournment (PB 1-2). Very short time given. 31.05.2018 06.06.2018 6 days N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued were either not at all served upon the assessee or else provided less than even 7 days to response. Thus, no reasonable opportunity was provided to the assessee to respond to the said summons. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Courts have time and again held that a reasonable opportunity of hearing which is sine qua non and imperative for the statutory authority to afford before passing the order or decision. Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or the rule that no one should be condemned unheard. This principle is the basic concept of principle of natural justice. This expression implies that a person must be given opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. The law is well settled that in a case where there is a violation of Principles of natural justice and a party has been deprived of its valuable rights of being heard effectively yet, such an order has to be considered as having been done without jurisdiction and vitiating the entire order which, results into as nullity and is not case of mere irregularity. Kindly refer Colonisers vs. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 57 (Hyderabad) (SB) [1993] 45 TTJ 114 (Hyderabad) (S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iples of natural justice has to be set aside as void only in so far as the additions by way of cash credits alone are concerned, which are separable from the other additions in the order that are not challenged and consequently becoming thus non est in the eye of law." 4.2 Supporting Case Law: In Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors (2009)12 SCC 40, wherein it was held as under: "8. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, schizophrenia (a mental disorder that can result in hallucinations or delusions and also adversely affects a person's ability to think and behave), anxiety disorder. The assessee was being regularly seeking treatment from Psychotherapist since the year 2017 (copy of medical prescription for various dates is placed at PB 3-6). A bare perusal of the said medical prescription will show that the assessee had to consult the doctor on monthly basis and thus, was under strict surveillance of the Psychotherapist doctor. 5.2 Alternatively and without being prejudice to the other arguments/ contentions, it is basic human tendency that a person is suffering from acute mental illness like depression, schizophrenia etc. has a habit of extreme overthinking and getting scared on petty things. In the instant case, a search action was carried out against the assessee and pursuant thereto, he was being called upon to be personally present of his statements, a situation wherein even a normal person with health mind gets tensed, mentally pressurized, depressed. Considering such a situation, the assessee was in a much worse state due to his known acute mental illness. Thus, even ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in A.Y 2018-19 (ITA No. 785/JPR/2023) since the facts and circumstances of both the years are similar and hence, the same may be considered Therefore, in view of our submissions the impugned addition of difference so made, kindly be deleted in full. Addl. GOA 5: Impugned assessment order not digitally signed: We reply upon our submissions for GOA 8 made in appeal in A.Y 2018-19 (ITA No. 785/JPR/2023) since the facts and circumstances of both the years are similar and hence, the same may be considered Therefore, in view of our submissions the impugned addition of difference so made, kindly be deleted in full." 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records: S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO. 1. Copy of adjournment application dated 04.04.2018 along with screenshot of email showing filing of the same before the AO 1-2 2. Copy of Doctor's prescription dated 02.02.2017, 27.01.2018, 19.06.2018, 22.01.2019 3-6 3. Copy of Written Submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A) dated 02.09.2023 7-9 8. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above w....