PURUSHOTTAM AGARWAL,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/GTY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 June 2020AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) despite the assessee filing adjournment applications. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex parte without affording a proper opportunity 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

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, “E

Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM]

Hearing: 02.06.2020Pronounced: 05.06.2020

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Dibrugarh dated 14.11.2018 for AY 2015-16 against the confirmation of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. After having heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and having gone through the material available on record, we note that though Ld. CIT(A) has given five opportunities to the assessee, since none appeared on behalf of assessee resulted in Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte. However, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has also stated that the assessee had duly filed adjournment application on all the five occasions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the assessee to appear and plead his case before him or given an opportunity to file written submissions before him. Without doing so, the principles of natural justice has been violated and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and, therefore, has to be set aside. In the light of the discussion, we are inclined to restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee is directed to promptly appear/file

2 Purushottam Agarwal, AY- 2015-16 written submission along with relevant documents in case assessee/AR prefers not to appear personally and the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case in accordance to law. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 5th June, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated :5th June, 2020 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant – Shri Purushottam Agarwal, Prop. M/s. Decowoods, Makum road, Tinsukia-786125 Respondent – ACIT, Circle-Tinsukia, 2 3. CIT(A)-Dibrugarh CIT-, , Dibrugarh 4.

5.

DR, ITAT, Guwahati.

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 →