CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT 2(1) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1791/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2022AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) passed the order before the deadline given for the assessee to file a reply.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the penalty order.

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, MUMBAI C BENCH, MUMBAI

Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] Assessment year: 2016-17 Central Bank of India ………….……… Appellant 4th Floor, Chandermukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN:AAACC2498P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Mumbai ……………… Respondent Appearances by R.V. Chaniyari for the appellant Chetan Kacha for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : July 22, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : July 22, 2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP:

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →