Case Law Details
Sujata Rajendra Nikalje Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – We find force in the alternate contention of the assesee. Admittedly, the assessee was in custody from 25th December, 2005 till 17th September, 2007 during which the assessment for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were framed. Although the assessee was given opportunity during remand proceedings, we find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that due to her depressed mental state of affairs for being behind bars for above 2 years, the assessee was not in a position to substantiate her case and, therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues for both the assessment years to the file of the A.O. for denovo assessment. The A.O. shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee for both the assessment years are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee in both the appeals has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. Since the quantum appeals have been restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for both the assessment years, which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A), does not survive. However, the A.O. is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as per law if required after completion of the assessments for A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 respectively.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
ITA No. 87 & 88/Mum/2010 – (Asst Year 2003-04)
ITA No. 3871/Mum/2008 – (Asst Year 2004-05)
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
