Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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. 1297/JP/2019
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. 1297/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Satish Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. 166 Shiv Vihar Opp. Road No. 5, TDS-1, VKI Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEXPG 9716 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1310/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Shri Satish Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. 166 Shiv Vihar Opp. Road No. 5, TDS-1, VKI Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JPRKO 3868 E 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 : 06/08/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/08/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER & 1310/JP/2019 Shri Satish Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, TDS PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M.
These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur both dated 16.10.2019 arising from the orders passed U/s 271CA & 206C(6A)/206C(7) of the IT Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2011-12 respectively.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when these appeals were called for hearing despite repeated notices were issued to the assessee and sent through e-mail at e-mail I.D. given by the assessee.
Accordingly, we propose to hear and dispose off of these appeals ex- parte.
The assessee has raised following grounds in these appeals:-
“1. That learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the levy of penalty of Rs. 42738/- U/s 271CA”.
“1.That learned CIT(A) has erred in maintaining the levy of TCS of Rs. 246886/- on account of treating the sale of 24688622/- as scrap while it was not scrap. 2. That learned CIT(A) has in maintaining interest of 102160/- U/s 206C(6A).”
We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A). The appeals of the assessee were dismissed by & 1310/JP/2019 Shri Satish Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, TDS the ld. CIT(A) vide impugned ex-parte orders. The ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not attend the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) despite various opportunities given by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the assessee is a habitual defaulter of non attending the proceedings. At the outset, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee summarily due to non appearance of the assessee. The appeals of the assessee were not decided on merits and even the ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking orders. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned orders of the ld. CIT(A) and remit both the matters to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee by speaking orders.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/08/2020