DEEPAK DATTARAM KADAM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 25(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the notice was sent to a wrong email ID, and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee is aggrieved by a penalty levied under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. The assessee contended that they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) as the notice was sent to an old email ID.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271D was rightly levied without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee, against order dated 24/08/2022, passed by NFAC Delhi, in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271D for the A.Y.2014-15.
The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.51,19,555/- u/s.271D in violation of Section 269SS of the Act
2 Shri Deepak Dattaram Kadam and passing of exparte order by the ld. CIT(A). Before us ld. Counsel submitted that only one notice was sent from the NFAC Centre but was sent on earlier e-mail ID and assessee has already updated the e-mail ID on the portal. Thus, assessee was not given any opportunity of hearing before the First Appellate authority. Accordingly, the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT (A) confirming the penalty should be set aside and matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh in accordance with law after considering the explanations as well as submissions of the assessee. The ld. DR also does not have any objection. The matter is remanded back to the file of the First Appellate authority.
After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the records, we find that the notice was sent from NFAC on 27/07/2022 fixing the appeal for hearing on 05/08/2022. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal exparte. As informed by the ld. Counsel, the said notice was sent on a wrong e-mail ID, whereas the assessee has already updated the e-mail ID on ITD portal. Accordingly, the notice sent on earlier e-mail ID cannot be complied with. Under these circumstances, we are remanding back the appeal to the file of the First Appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to represent his case. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31st March, 2023
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026