DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA LLP(SUCESSOR OF DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU INDIA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2) (1)(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1783/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 September 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions, and the quantum appeal was also pending. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order for AY 2014-15 was heard ex-parte by the NFAC. The assessee argued that submissions were made to the previous CIT(A) and the quantum appeal for the same year was still pending.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte penalty order passed by the NFAC without considering submissions and while the quantum appeal is pending is valid.

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 10.06.2022, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2014-15.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a ex-parte order passed by the First Appellate Authority despite several submission were filed before earlier CIT(A) in physical form and hearing was continuing before the then Ld. CIT(A). He further pointed out that appeal for the quantum proceedings for the same assessment year is still pending before the First Appellate Authority. Thus, he requested that matter should be remanded back to the First Appellate Authority to decide afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. DR admitted that matter should be restored back to the First Appellate Authority for deciding afresh.

4.

In view of the aforesaid fact that the order has been passed ex- parte despite submissions and documents were filed before the earlier CIT(A) in physical form, however matter was transferred to NFAC during pending hearing. Ld. NFAC has not considered those submission at all. Moreover, the quantum proceeding is also pending before the First Appellate Authority. Under these circumstances, we are remitting back the entire issue relating to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) to the file of First Appellate

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP Authority to decide afresh in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Orders pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) (Amit Shukla) Accountant Member Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;ददनांक Dated : 07.09.2022 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →