KARUPPAUDAIYAR SELLAMUTHU,SALEM vs. ITO,NFAC, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, subject to payment of costs.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals arose from ex-parte assessment and penalty orders. The assessee had not appeared before the lower authorities despite opportunities.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex-parte assessment and penalty orders should be set aside to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 02-12-2022 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] under section 144 of the Act on 02-12-2019 and penalty levied u/s 271AAC vide order dated 06-08-2021.
The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that quantum assessment orders as well as penalty orders passed by lower authorities are ex- parte orders. Accordingly, Ld. AR sought remand of impugned matters to Ld. AO so that the assessee could substantiate his claim before the Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee remained negligent in attending any of the proceedings.
The Bench observed that the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities despite being given sufficient opportunities. However, the Bench accept the submission of Ld. AR by observing that after all the orders of the lower authorities are ex-parte orders and keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders are set-aside. However, this concession would come upon payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The & 164/Chny/2023 :- 3 -:
receipt / proof shall be furnished by the assessee in due course to Ld. AO who shall proceed to reframe the assessment and consequential penalty de novo after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 23rd June, 2023.
More judgments on Section 271AAC
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar vs Rameshbhai Harvara, JamnagarITA 450/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Rameshbhai Harvara, Jamnagar vs ITO Ward 1(3), JamnagarITA 442/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, JunagadhITA 836/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026