SHRI PURSHOTAM DAS SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-4, JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file a regular return of income for AY 2009-10 due to an inadvertent mistake. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty through an ex parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing adequate opportunity of hearing is valid. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable on the grounds raised by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1239/JP/2018
ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ex parte order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 30/08/2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the matter of imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
The assessee is basically aggrieved for passing the ex parte order by the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also aggrieved for confirming the penalty of Rs. 27,872/- levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
2 ITA 1239/JP/2018 Shri Purshotam Das Sharma Vs ITO 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee was an employee with North Western Railways and during the year under consideration earned income from salary therefrom and interest. Due to inadvertent mistake could not file regular return U/s 139 of the Act. Based on the information about TDS deducted out of salary and the A.O. initiated proceedings U/s 147 by issuing notice U/s 148 of the Act. In response thereto the assessee had filed his return of income declared income and tax payments.
The AO framed assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act vide his order dated 30.01.2016 by accepting the returned income. Thereafter he imposed penalty of Rs. 27,872 u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O.
It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on illegal notice as the notice issued by the AO dated 30.01.2016 does not contain perfect default of the assessee for such levy. The notice says that the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty on the basis of such defective notice has been deleted by this Hon'ble Bench in large number of cases. Reliance is placed on the cases
3 ITA 1239/JP/2018 Shri Purshotam Das Sharma Vs ITO of Udai Kant Mishra v/s ACIT (ITA No. 292/JPR/2016 vide order dated 22.12.2017 & Shri Ravi Mathur v/s DCIT, CC 4, Jaipur (ITA No. 969/JP/2017 vide order dated 13.06.2018.
From the record, I found that this ground was not specifically raised before the ld. CIT(A). Since the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is ex parte without giving appropriate opportunity to the assessee, in all fairness, I restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. I direct accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2019
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026