ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3024/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 June 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal. The assessee was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalties were dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-attendance. The assessee also remained unrepresented before the AO during penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without granting proper opportunity of hearing 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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev S. Mutha
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

PER BENCH : This batch of seven appeals by the assessee arises out of the separate orders passed by the CIT(A)-12, Pune on 11-0 8-2017 in relation to the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12 confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). We have clubbed these appeals for disposal as a common issue is raised in them.

2.

The assessee, through ground no. 1, has, inter alia,

challenged the passing of the ex-parte orders by the ld. CIT(A)

without granting proper opportunity of hearing.

3.

We have heard both the sides through virtual hearing and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld.

CIT(A) dismissed the appeals of the assessee primarily for non-

attendance. It is further noted that the assessee remained

unrepresented before the AO also in the penalty proceedings. In view of the aforenoted facts obtaining in the extant cases and the ld. DR not raising any serious objection to the granting of opportunity of hearing to the assessee, we are of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeals afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26th June, 2020. (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; "दनांक Dated : 26th June, 2020 Satish आदेश क" क" क" "ितिलिप क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ"ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent;

2.3.

The CIT(A)-12, Pune

4.

The Pr. CIT, Central, Nagpur िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे 5. “बी” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune गाड" फाईल / Guard file 6. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date

1.

Draft dictated on 26-06-2020 Sr.PS

2.

Draft placed before author 26-06-2020 Sr.PS

3.

Draft proposed & placed JM before the second member

4.

Draft discussed/approved JM by Second Member.

5.

Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS the Sr.PS/PS

6.

Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS

7.

Date of uploading order Sr.PS

8.

File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS

9.

Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk

10.

Date on which file goes to the A.R.

11.

Date of dispatch of Order. *

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 →