SHRI DEEPAK SOGANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 October 2020AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed against the order confirming penalty. The assessee did not appear for hearings before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, seeking adjournments and expressing interest in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty and deciding the appeal ex-parte without proper representation from the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2018

Hearing: 06/10/2020Pronounced: 06/10/2020

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 02/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Deepak Sogani The DCIT, Vs. 467, Acharaya Kriplani Marg, Circle-2, Near Moti Doongri Police Station, Jaipur. 20 Dukan, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADGPS 6684 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Rooni Pal (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/10/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.10.2017 of ld. CIT (A)-I, Jaipur for the assessment year 2012-13. Due to prevailing COVId-19 pandemic condition the hearing of the appeals are concluded through video conference. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- Shri Deepak Sogani Vs. DCIT

“That the Authorities below erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,82,619/-. 2. That the Authorities below have further erred in giving the facts that nobody was attended on the date of hearing which was fixed on 23.10.2017. 3. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. It transpired from the record that this appeal was filed on 01.01.2018 and since beginning the assessee has been seeking adjournments of the hearing. The assessee has also expressed his wellness to opt for “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2020” to settle his tax liability with the Department. Further the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned ex-parte order. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we propose to hear and dispose off of this appeal ex-parte.

3.

The ld. DR has submitted that despite number of opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A) nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee to explain the case before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the ld. CIT(A) had no option but to decide the appeal ex-parte.

4.

Having considered the rival submissions of the ld. DR as well as impugned passed by the ld. CIT(A) we note that the ld. CIT(A) has Shri Deepak Sogani Vs. DCIT decided the appeal ex-parte when nobody has appeared on the date of hearing i.e. 23.10.2017. Though the assessee was given various opportunity of hearing however, on the earlier hearing were adjourned on the request of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2020

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/10/2020. *Santosh. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Deepak Sogani, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Circile-2, Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →