DEEPAK DATTARAM KADAM,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 25(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2582/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 March 2023AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 18/01/2023Pronounced: 31/03/2023

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.

2.

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

1.

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.

3.

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

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →