Narendra Kapoor, Kanpur vs Assessee

This is assessee's appeal directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 25/09/2014 for the assessment year 2004-2005.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:

"1. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

2. Because there being neither any concealment, nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.60,000/-.

3. Because the authority below has erred on facts and in law in treating the assessee in default and imposing a penalty of Rs.60,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, which penalty is bad in law and be deleted.

2 4. Because there being neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income, the authority below has erred on facts in holding that the assessee has concealed his income and thereby levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c).

5. Because on a proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case it would be found that there is neither furnishing of inaccurate particulars nor any concealment of income the authorities below has failed to appreciate the bonafide belief of the assessee and have wrongly imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c), which penalty is bad in law and be deleted."

3. It was submitted by Learned A.R. of the assessee that the order was passed by CIT(A) ex-parte qua the assessee. He further submitted that only two notices were received by the assessee from CIT(A) for compliance on 18/06/2014 and 19/09/2014 and the order was passed by him on 25/09/2014 without giving any further opportunity. Regarding these two notices, it was submitted that the assessee could not appear on these dates for some personal difficulties. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. He has given an undertaking that if the matter is restored to CIT(A), the assessee will not seek any undue adjournment and will co-operate with CIT(A).

4. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of CIT(A). He also submitted that since none appeared before CIT(A) and even no adjournment was sought for, the assessee does not deserve any further opportunity.

5. We have considered the rival submissions. After considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided one more opportunity and therefore, we 3

set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We want to make it clear that the assessee should co-operate with the CIT(A) and should not seek any adjournment without justifiable and valid reasons.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)

Sd/. Sd/.

(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dated:26/02/2015. *C.L.Singh

Copy of the order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.Concerned CIT 4.The CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., Lucknow Asstt. Registrar