Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
Smt. Sumitra Garg ITO-5(1) 60, Radha Krishna Vihar Indore बनाम/ Near Pipliya Hana Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AHJPG1563E Appellant by Shri Suresh Keemti, AR Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 08.01.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-22, (holding concurrent jurisdiction of CIT(A), Indore-I) New Delhi dated 18.01.2016 in the matter
Smt. Sumitra Garg /ITANos.732 & 733/Ind/2019 passed u/s 144/143(3) and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, respectively.
At the outset of the hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that no proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee by the revenue authorities as the AO passed ex-parte order u/s 144/143(3)
& levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) thereof whereas Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical ground and confirmed the penalty thereof. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. We find that assessment order was passed ex-parte u/s 144/143(3) of the Act on 29.09.2010 whereas the penalty order was passed on 18.03.2011. The assessee had submitted one appeal against both the orders before the Ld. CIT(A) on time. The appeal was fixed from Smt. Sumitra Garg /ITANos.732 & 733/Ind/2019 time to time and on the date of hearing i.e. 19.11.2012 the Ld. CIT(A) asked to submit another separate appeal against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the assessee submitted another separate appeal on 22.11.2012.
Thereafter, both the appeals were fixed from time to time before the Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals were heard as the required information/documents were submitted.
Therefore, the assessee was in impression that she will receive the order on facts and merits of the case. But, the assessee received another notice from Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi stating holding concurrent jurisdiction of CIT(A), Indore-1, fixing a date of hearing on 18.01.2016. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal on the ground that one appeal cannot be filed against the order u/s 144/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Before us, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that two appeals were already filed and the Ld. CIT(A) who was initially
Smt. Sumitra Garg /ITANos.732 & 733/Ind/2019 dealing the appeals was satisfied with necessary ratification when another separate appeal against penalty order was already filed long back and both the appeals were supported by prescribed appeal fees. This submission of the Ld. counsel for the assessee could not be controverted by the revenue by bringing any adverse material on record. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of the justice we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) should have not dismiss the appeal on technical ground. Therefore, the assessee’s appeals are liable to be reconsidered by the ld. CIT(A).
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. CIT(A) would decide the appeals afresh on merits in terms as indicated hereinabove after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and Smt. Sumitra Garg /ITANos.732 & 733/Ind/2019 the assessee is also directed to cooperate/appear before ld. CIT(A) in this regard.
In result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 08 .01.2021.