9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned A. R. submitted that Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- and on appeal before learned CIT(A) the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the same as there was delay in filing the appeal before him. Learned A. R. submitted that if the learned CIT(A) 2 wanted to deny the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, he should have given notice to the assessee in this respect and then, after hearing the assessee, could have dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In this respect reliance was placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nausaee and Ors. Vs. Lyakat and Ors. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41764 of 1999. Therefore, it was prayed that the matter may be remanded back to learned CIT(A) for adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2014-15 it appears to me that you- * have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given u/s 22(l)/22(2)/34 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or which you were required to furnish u/s 139(2)/ 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)723(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(0/143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 No. * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inaccurate particulars of income. We take guidance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty proceedings have been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In that case, the Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the facts and the issue involved in ITA Nos.653 & 654/LKW/2016 are identical, following our view taken in ITA No.652/LKW/2016, we delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in ITA Nos.653 & 654/LKW/2016 also." Therefore, respectfully following the above, we also delete the penalty sustained by learned CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee in I.T.A. No.179. 6. Now coming to appeal in I.T.A. No.180, we find that there was a delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A) and CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as he held that there was no reason for condonation of delay. However, before dismissing the condonation of delay he should have heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
