ITAT Agra held that confirming penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act before finalization of quantum assessment is unjust and unfair. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Agra restores penalty appeal in Devendra Kumar Dubey Vs ITO for reassessment by CIT(A). Case highlights concealment penalty of ₹34,803 under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT Agra held that merely uploading of the communication in the Income Tax department e-portal is not sufficient mode of communication in view provisions of Section 282 of the 1961 Act and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Agra remands ₹34,803 penalty case under Section 271(1)(c) to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after setting aside quantum additions for reassessment.
ITAT Agra held that matter of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act restored back to file of AO since Tribunal restored matter of addition towards unexplained cash deposit for quantification.
ITAT Agra held that evidences with regard to deposit of income tax deducted at source (TDS) filed for the first time before ITAT hence appeal allowed with direction to AO to verify the documents.
ITAT Agra held that addition towards interest paid on CC is liable to be deleted since interest free advance given to potato growers (farmers) were out of the business expediency. Accordingly, addition deleted and appeal allowed.
On appeal CIT (A) observed that assessee used different PAN in Form 35 instead of one used for reassessment. Assessee neither file return in response to notice u/s 148 not it complied with the statutory notices.
ITAT Agra held that ex-parte dismissal of appeal, as notices issued by CIT(A) were not compiled, without adjudicating issues on merits is in violation of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Hence, order set aside and matter remitted back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Agra held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely because the assessee did not comply with the notices issued by CIT(A), without adjudicating issues arising in the appeal on merits, is not sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view provisions of Section 250(6).
