B.N. DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KENDRAPADA vs. ITO, KENDRAPADA WARD, KENDRAPADA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 147/CTK/2022Status: HeardITAT Cuttack10 January 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the penalty on merits and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the possibility of notices not being received.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The assessee claimed they did not receive notices, possibly due to email issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was correctly levied and confirmed without a proper adjudication on merits by the CIT(A) due to procedural issues regarding notice delivery.

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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Pronounced: 10/01

O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, , NFAC, Delhi, dated 8.7.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/10343774830 43774830(1) for the assessment year 2015 2015-16 confirming the penalty of Rs.1,03,410/ penalty of Rs.1,03,410/-, levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Shri K.K.Bal Shri K.K.Bal, AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld , AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by It was submitted by ld AR that the Assessing Officer has levied ld AR that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty without striking off of the relevant clause penalty without striking off of the relevant clauses in the penalty notice. It in the penalty notice. It was the further submission that the notice alleged to have been issued by was the further submission that the notice alleged to have been issued by was the further submission that the notice alleged to have been issued by P a g e 1 | 3 the ld CIT(A) has not been received by the assessee. It was the submission that the penalty as levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is liable to be deleted or alternatively the issue in this appeal may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the ld CIT(A) even though substantial opportunities have been granted. It was the submission that these are fresh arguments being placed by the ld AR and same cannot be considered.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue of penalty on merits. Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not appeared before him in the course of hearing. It is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has in para 4 of his order mentioned that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee by sending notice through registered e-mail but the assessee has submitted that he has not received any mail. It is possible that the notice sent in mail could have gone to the spam folder. This being so, considering the interest of justice, we are of the view that the issue in this appeal may be restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for re-adjudication. Accordingly, we restore the issue in this appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

P a g e 2 | 3

6.

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

1.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 10/01/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 10/01/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : B.N.Developers Pvt Ltd., At: Baniamal, PO: College Road, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara 2. The Respondent: ITO, Kendrapara Ward, Kendrapara 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT-, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 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 →