BALAJI INDUSTRIAL & AGRICULTURAL CASTINGS, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 227/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 September 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration to provide a proper hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271B. The assessee's counsel argued that they were not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the penalty under Section 271B was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 250(6),Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Chakrapany
For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra, DR
Hearing: 16/09/2020Pronounced: 29/09/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. Balaji Industrial and Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Agricultural Castings, of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-11(1), PAN: AABFB 7879 D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Pavan Chakrapany Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra, DR Date of hearing: 16/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 29/09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0247/2015-16/CIT(A)-5, dated 28/12/2016 passed U/s. 271B r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2012- 13.

2.

The assessee has raised eight grounds in its appeal which are extracted herein below for reference:-

(1) The order of the Authorities below in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the appellant’s case.

(2) The appellant denies himself liable to levy penalty U/s. 271B of the Act being Rs. 1,50,000/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. (3) The Ld. Authorities below are not justified in law in levying penalty U/s. 271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under the fact and circumstances of the case. (4) The Ld. Authorities Below failed to appreciate the fact that there was difference amount the partners and change in management from the impugned assessment year 2012-13, hence, levying of penalty U/s. 271B of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- is not justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. (5) Without prejudice the Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that there was reasonable cause for failure on the part of the appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. (6) Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Authorities below ought to have applied the provisions of section 273B of the Act and drop the penalty imposed as there was reasonable cause for the failure on the part of the appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. (7) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. (8) In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity."

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) did not provide the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. He therefore pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh consideration. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objection for remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A).

4.

After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to argue its case before the Ld. CIT (A) since the assessee’s Counsel could not effectively argue before the Ld. CIT (A) due to lack of opportunity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for de novo consideration.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 29th September, 2020.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →