TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay and pleaded for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal within the time allowed under the law are that, the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, was passed Order in this case on 30.08.2024. Further, the other appeals for the same assessment year were also decided on the same date. However, due to oversight, the said appellate order escaped notice of the appellant. Otherwise also, the appellant is not so conversant with the e-portal. He submitted that only when pointed-out by the learned Assessing Officer that, the demand against the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delay, the courts must have a liberal approach or lenient approach considering the reasons given by the petitioners or appellants. Therefore, going by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MST Katiji (supra) and also considering the submissions of the assessee, we condone the delay of 321 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Firm and had not filed it's return of income for the assessment year 2013-2014. As per the Insight portal of the Department, a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sri Nawal Kishore Jalan at Kolkata on 21.05.2018 and it came to light that the assessee had availed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- as computed by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 u/sec.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,32,500/- levied by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. CA, Ashwani Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in appellant's own case in ITA.Nos.845, 889 & 890/Hyd./2024, Order dated 29.11.2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014, where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : "7. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. We have also gone through the copy of PAN submitted by the assessee and also the page nos.8 to 14 of the paper book containing the copy of partnership deed and found that the date of constitution of the assessee firm was on 16.04.2013. Therefore, according to these documents, the assessee was not in existence during A.Y. 2013-14. However, the allegation made by the Ld. AO is related tο Α.Υ. 2013-14. The Ld. AO did not bring any evidence on record regarding the existence of the assessee during A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore on this count we are of the considered opinion that no addition can ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we delete the addition made by the Ld. AO. ITA No.889/Hyd/2024 8. This appeal of the assessee is against the levy of penalty u/s. 271A of the Act, which has been made by the Ld. AO for failure to keep and maintain books of account of business in accordance with section 44AA of the Act. As per our discussion and observation in ITA No.845/Hyd/2024 above, the assessee was not in existence during the A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that when an assessee is not in existence in a particular year, no question of maintenance of any books of account arises for that particular year. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty u/s. 271A of the Act can be levied on the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14. Acc....