ASHOK OBEROI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2256/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 March 2021AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without a decision on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance on the final hearing date. The assessee argued that they had appeared for most hearings and the dismissal was without sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits and whether sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee.

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, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 24.02.2016, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The CIT [A] has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant utilizing the provisions of section 251(1)(C), that he has the powers to dispose of an appeal “in any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit”.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte on the basis of material available on record on the ground of non appearance while the appellant appeared three out of 5 times the appeal was posted for hearing.

3. The CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal involving large amount of penalty of Rs 14,17,356 without giving sufficient time to the appellant.”

2. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that same has been passed ex-parte and confirming the penalty of Rs.14,17,356/- as levied by the Assessing Officer.

3. Ld. CIT(A) has noted the following date of hearing and details of notice which is as under:

S.No. Date of Date of Date of Remarks notice Hearing Adjournment 1. 24.08.2015 10.09.2015 -- Notice was sent by “ Speed Post” on 24.08.2015 fixing the case for 10.09.2015. None attended nor filed any adjournment. 2. 12.10.2015 19.10.2015 02.11.2015 The case was adjourned to 02.11.2015 on the request of the appellant. 3. --- 02.11.2015 28.12.2015 The case was adjourned to 28.12.2015 on the request of the appellant. 4. --- 28.12.2015 22.02.2016 The case was adjourned to 22.02.2016 on the request of the appellant. 5. --- 22.02.2016 --- None attended nor any request for adjournment was made nor any submission was furnished.

4.

He has dismissed the appeal without deciding it on merits.

5.

However, after looking to the fact that assessee had appeared and sought for adjournment, but it was on the last date of hearing, as per the noting of the ld. CIT (A) the assessee could not appear, and therefore, he has dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Looking to the fact that it is an ex-parte which has not been adjudicated on merit, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we are remanding the impugned order and the grounds raised

before us to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh on merits and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th March, 2021

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 →