ASHOK JAYANTIBHAI MIYANI,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), THANE

The assessee has raised various grounds challenging the confirmation of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,03,320/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) noted that notices issued during the appellate proceedings remained unattended and no

At the outset, the Ld AR submitted that the impugned order has been passed ex parte and requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal in the absence of any effective representation from the assessee. Though the Ld CIT(A) has proceeded to adjudicate the appeal, the fact remains that the assessee did not get effective opportunity to place his submissions and supporting material before the first appellate authority.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld CIT(A) shall decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The assessee is directed to promptly comply with the notices issued by the Ld CIT(A) and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. In case of non-compliance, the Ld CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12thday of June, 2026.