VIPANDAN SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SARANGPUR vs. ITO SHAJAPUR, SHAJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 835/IND/2019Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 June 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since no meaningful opportunity was provided to the assessee, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals). The impugned order was set aside and restored back to the file of the CIT(Appeals).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the penalty was levied.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in passing ex-parte decisions and levying penalty without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.06.2020Pronounced: 10.06.2020

Vipandan Sahakari Samiti ITO Maryadit, Shajapur बनाम/ Sarangpur Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAALV0434B Appellant by Written Submission Revenue by Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 10.06.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Ujjain, dated 25.01.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo.833/Ind/2019: “1.That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte decision without considering the facts of the case.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) and Ld. ITO has erred in levying penalty of Rs.10000/- u/s 271(1)(B). 1

Vipandan Sahakari

3. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ITO has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying the penalty. ”

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo.835/Ind/2019:

“1.That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte decision without considering the facts of the case. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) and Ld. ITO has erred in levying penalty of Rs.75100/- u/s 271(1)(B). 3. That the ld. CIT(A) as well as the ITO has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard before levying the penalty.”

2.

The assessee has filed a written submission through which it has submitted that these appeals before the ld. CIT(A) were fixed on various dates and has been decided ex-parte. On some days of hearing the counsel of the assessee appeared but the appeals could not be heard. It is humbly prayed that for the cause of natural justice the matters may kindly be set aside before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) opposed these submissions and supported the order of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since no meaningful opportunity was provided to the assessee, in the interest of justice, the assessee’s matter is Vipandan Sahakari liable to be reconsidered by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) should decide the appeals afresh on merits in terms as indicated hereinabove after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law and the assessee is also directed to cooperate/appear before ld. CIT(A) in this regard.

5.

In result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Order was pronounced in the open court on 10.06.2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(B)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(B) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →