ANUJ MANEKLAL BHANDARI,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter after considering all submissions and adhering to the principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear on multiple hearing dates and did not provide written replies or explanations to notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was justified given the assessee's non-compliance with notices and hearing dates. The primary issue was the opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH:
These six appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the common order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-12, Pune dated 09.08.2017 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that common issue of grievance in all these appeals is with regard to the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals).
Both the parties agreed that the facts, circumstances and issue in all these appeals are similar and therefore, these cases were heard together and disposed of vide this consolidated order.
That on perusal of the penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act, it is observed that the date of hearing was fixed on 14.09.2015. However, there was no compliance from the assessee and neither any written reply/adjournment letter from the assessee were received. Therefore, a show cause notice u/s.271(1)(b) r.w.s.274 of the Act was issued on 29.10.2015 fixing the case for hearing on 05.11.2015. That on the given date, neither the assessee attended nor any reply was received from the assessee. During assessment proceedings also, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued. However, on that date fixed for hearing i.e. 14.09.2015, the assessee has neither attended nor has furnished any written reply. The assessee has also neither attended nor filed any explanation in response to the show cause notice issued u/s.271(1)(b) r.w.s.274 of the Act. That due to all these non compliances by the assessee, the Assessing Officer, therefore, was satisfied that the assessee has committed default u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act and penalty was levied.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book wherein as regards the date of hearing fixed on 14.09.2015 submitted that the assessee had sought an adjournment and therefore, it is the contention of the assessee that they have responded to the notice of the Department. However, when we peruse the penalty order, we find there is no mention in respect of these submissions of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee so that he may justify his stand before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer will decide the case after bringing on record all the submissions placed forth by the assessee while complying with the principles of natural justice.
In view thereof, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in all these appeals and restore the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer as indicated hereinabove.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in to 2758/PUN/2017 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 2nd day of February, 2021.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1195/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1194/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Navanitbhai Gordhanbhai Bhuva, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), SuratITA 1193/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Laxmi Narain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New DelhiITA 4432/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Laxminarain Kesarwani, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circel-20, New DelhiITA 4431/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026