SHRI SUBHASH CHAND SONI, SARAFA BAZAR, MAHWA, DAUSA,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, WARD-DAUSA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 798/JPR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 June 2020AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the outcome of the quantum appeal decided by the ITAT before passing the penalty appeal order. Since the CIT(A) did not consider the ITAT's order and passed a summary dismissal, the matter needs reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The assessee argued that the quantum appeal was pending before the ITAT and sought an adjournment, which was not considered. The ITAT had subsequently granted partial relief in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the outcome of the pending quantum appeal before the ITAT. Whether the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified in light of the subsequent relief granted in the quantum appeal.

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, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 798/JP/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 30/06/2020Pronounced: 30/06/2020

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 798/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Shri Subhash Chand Soni The ITO, Vs. Prop. M/s Ramniwas & Sons, Ward, Sarafa Bazar, Mahuwa, Dausa. Dausa. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AOCPS 1629 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/06/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 30/06/2020 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2019 of ld. CIT(A), Alwar arising from penalty order passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment order 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-party order without giving reasonable opportunities of being heard. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the principles of Shri Subhash Chand Soni vs. ITO natural justice. Relief may please be provided by quashing the said order.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 7,26,800/- imposed by ld. AO U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said penalty of Rs. 7,26,800/-“. 2. The hearing of this appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of COVId-19 pandemic. At the outset, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide ex-parte impugned order.

He has pointed that the quantum appeal was pending before the Tribunal and therefore, the assessee was seeking adjournment of the hearing before the ld. CIT(A). The quantum appeal was finally decided by this tribunal only on 25.03.2019 and the order was received in the end of month whereas the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee in the penalty proceeding without considering outcome of the quantum appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, the ld. AR has pleaded that the assessee may given one more opportunity of hearing before the ld. CIT(A) to explain its case in light of the decision of this Tribunal in the quantum appeal. Shri Subhash Chand Soni vs. ITO

3.

On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A)has recorded the fact that several opportunities were given but nobody attended the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the appeal of the assessee cannot be kept in abyance indefinitely. The ld. DR has opposed to the prayer of the assessee for setting aside the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the appeal of the assessee filed against the levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) when nobody has attended the proceeding despite 12 opportunities were given by the ld. CIT(A). We further, note that out of these 12 opportunities the date of hearing upto 12.04.2018 were prior to the disposal of the quantum appeal of the assessee by this Tribunal, therefore, it was appropriate to wait for outcome of the quantum proceeding though it is not necessary. The ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue by a speaking order but dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily for want of any attendance on behalf of the assessee. It is pertinent to note that before the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) the appeal of the assessee in the quantum proceeding was decided by this Tribunal and therefore, the observations and findings of Shri Subhash Chand Soni vs. ITO the Tribunal in the quantum proceeding ought to have been considered while deciding the appeal against the penalty order. This Tribunal in the quantum appeal has granted part relief to the assessee and therefore, the said order becomes relevant for deciding the penalty appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the ld. CIT(A) has not considered this Tribunal order in the quantum appeal while passing the impugned order the matter is required to be reconsidered after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well as considering the order of this Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same fresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2020.

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 →