AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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. Hence, the impugned order is completely devoid of jurisdiction not having being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opy 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 incriminating material including cash of Rs. 4 cr. was seized. During post search investigation, summo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 No notice received - 2. We reply upon the written submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) dated 02.09.2023 (PB 7-9): "In above we have to submit as under - A. Section 274 of IT Act stated that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) (SB) holding that: "In the preceding paragraphs it has been indicated why the assessee's version cannot be rejected as regards the credits appearing in his books. Perhaps the only justification, if at all it can be called a justification, for the ITO to reject the credits a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 considering for a moment that the assessee had non-complied with the summon, the same would have been due to his acute mental illness, and hence not intentional or deliberate. 5.3.1 Supporting Case Law: In Smt. Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha vs ITO (ITA No.1608/PUN/2017 vide order dated 28.07.2020), the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT held as under: "7. We have perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee relied upon the chart as reproduced herein below in the written submissions that the first notice was not served and other two notices wherein time given was lesser and that the assessee had been advised rest, and as such, the assessee was having sufficient reason for non-compliance. The assessee lives in Bhilwara and summons were given to appear at Jaipur within short time which is n....