ACIT Vs Vijay Pandey (ITAT Lucknow)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Lucknow has dismissed an appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (ACIT) against taxpayer Vijay Pandey. The appeal, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17, sought to challenge the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) decision to cancel a penalty of ₹3,10,08,681. This penalty had been imposed under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for a violation of Section 269SS, which prohibits the acceptance of a loan, deposit, or specified sum in cash exceeding ₹20,000.
The Tribunal’s decision was based entirely on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the case. The ITAT Registry had identified a significant defect in the appeal, noting that it was not filed in the prescribed format. Despite repeated reminders from the Registry and multiple opportunities given during court hearings, the Revenue failed to rectify the defect. This procedural failure was deemed a sufficient reason for the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.
In its order, the ITAT stated that it was dismissing the appeal due to the Revenue’s “failure… to remove the defect intimated through defect memo.” While the dismissal was a final order for the current proceedings, the Tribunal did offer a path forward. It clarified that the Revenue would be at liberty to file a new request for the restoration of the appeal after the procedural defect has been corrected. This ruling underscores the importance of adherence to procedural formalities in legal proceedings, even for government departments. The judgment does not include any judicial precedents, as the decision was based on a point of procedural law rather than substantive tax matters.
