SONESH DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3131/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 February 2023AY 2013-142 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 CIT(A)'s order, stating that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) against a penalty under section 271(1)(c) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, but received no reply or written submissions from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The need to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI ‘G’ BENCH, MUMBAI.

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Om Kandalkar
For Respondent: Ms. Neerja Sharma
Hearing: 07.02.2023Pronounced: 14.02.2023

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution.

2.

We heard both the parties and perused the record. The assessee has preferred the appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the penalty of Rs.8,32,900/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The learned CIT(A) issued notices on four occasions to the assessee, but there was no reply from the assessee. Accordingly the learned CIT(A), placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of the learned CIT(A) Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (38 ITD 320)(Del), dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

2 Sonesh Dedhia

3.

We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any written submission before him, i.e., the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A) properly so that the Ld CIT(A) could adjudicate the grounds on merits. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh on merits, after affording opportunity of being head to the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 14.2.2023.

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 →