GREAT VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. L;TD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1) (4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty and passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, citing reasons like the COVID-19 pandemic.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly upheld by the CIT(A) and whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2021 for the A.Y. 2014-15.
(A.Y. 2014-15) Great View Properties Pvt. Ltd., 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs 10,53,623/-.
2. The CIT (A) erred in passing the Order without applying principle of natural justice and for failing to give reasonable time to Appellant to response to Appeal Notice.
3. The CIT (A) erred in passing exparte order without giving sufficient time to the Appellant and not considering the adjournment applied for by Appellant.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant made adjournment application before jurisdictional CIT (A) earlier and also before CIT(A) National Faceless Centre and could not attend subsequently before jurisdiction CIT(A) due to covidpandemic and lock down imposed in Mumbai and later on in Faceless arena before CIT(A) ignoring the adjournment request dated 21% September 2021.
5. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence subject to levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act.
6. The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding that if the claim of expenditure is not sustainable in law, then it will amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
7. The learned CIT (A) erred in assuming with lower authorities that no details of expenses were submitted by appellant which is contrary to the facts on record.
8. The CIT (A) has erred in overlooking and summarily rejecting the detailed statement of facts submitted along with Memorandum of Appeal.”
Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.
(A.Y. 2014-15) Great View Properties Pvt. Ltd., 4. Heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on multiple occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2022.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026