MRS. MASUMA EQBAL HUSAIN RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO 19-(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 648/MUM/2004Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 March 2023AY 1996-19973 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income and applied under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS). However, she failed to pay the declared taxes, leading to a reopened assessment and penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed her appeals without a proper hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeals were restored for denovo adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143,Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 08.03.2023Pronounced: 31.03.2023

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

These appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 1996-97 and 1997-98.

2.

As the facts in all these appeals are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order in these appeals.

3.

There was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby pass an ex parte order by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue and on perusal of the available materials on record. income for the impugned years. It is observed that the assessee filed application under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS for short). The assessee failed to pay taxes declared under VDIS scheme and subsequently, the assessee’s case was reopened and the assessment order u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147A was passed and penalty was also levied on the same. The assessee had challenged the said order before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the said appeals without providing adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

Having heard the ld. DR and perused the materials on record. We deem it fit to restore this matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeals on merits, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both the quantum appeals as well as the appeals challenging the consequential penalty are set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

7.

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023.

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 →