THE SECRETARY,M/S.ANAVILASAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,IDUKKI vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF T ( I & CI), KOCHI

The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessees in the above cases have challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the I.T.Act. At the very outset we notice that the assessees had raised a ground in all the above appeals that the orders levying penalty are ex parte orders and hence bad in law. When the assessees received notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act show causing for why penalty should not be imposed, the assessees had sought time stating that the provisions of issuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T.Act was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and requested the Assessing Officer to await the outcome of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment. Further, it was stated that the assessees had sought time for producing the details called for in the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the I.T.Act stating that the documents called for are voluminous. Hence it contended that there was reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that in all the above cases, the Assessing Officer’s have passed penalty orders without hearing the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, as a last chance, we are of the view that the assessees should be given one more opportunity of hearing in the above cases. For the limited purpose of hearing the assessees and to comply with the principle of natural justice, we restore the above cases to the Assessing Officer. The assessees shall co- operative with the Department and shall submit before the Assessing Officer that there is reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B for non-levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) of the I.T.Act. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.