MRS. SUNANDA POPAT SUKE,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1083/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 January 2019AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while notices were sent, it was unclear if they were duly served. Since the orders were passed in the absence of the assessees, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessees appealed ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) which confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271D. The assessees claimed the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by deciding the appeals without their presence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without ensuring proper service of notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL. & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Biyani
For Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu, JCIT
Hearing: 14.01.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

These two appeals by two different assessees are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Pune

ITA Nos.1082 & 1083/PUN/2016

confirming levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2011-12 in their

respective cases. Both the impugned orders are dated 04.01.2016.

2.

Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical and are

arising from similar set of facts, both the appeals are taken up

together for adjudication and are disposed off vide this common

order.

3.

Shri Rohit Biyani appearing on behalf of the assessees

submitted that by way of these two appeals, assessees have assailed

ex-parte orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in

confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. The CIT(A)

has violated the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeals

at the back of the appellants/assessees.

4.

Shri Ashok Babu representing the Department vehemently

defended the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in

confirming the levy of penalty. The ld.D.R. submitted that the CIT(A)

had issued notice of hearing of the appeals to the assessee before

adjudicating the appeals.

5.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of

rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. A

perusal of the impugned orders reveal that notice of the appeals were

sent to the assessees, however it is not emanating from the orders

whether the notices were duly served on the assessees or not. It is a

ITA Nos.1082 & 1083/PUN/2016

well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of

hearing should be afforded to the parties and no party should be

condemned unheard. Since, both the impugned orders have been

passed in the absence of respective assessees or their Authorised

Representatives, we deem it appropriate to restore these appeals back

to the file of CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall decide the appeals of

assessees afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to

the assessees, in accordance with the law.

6.

The assessees are also directed to appear before the CIT(A) on

receiving notice of hearing of the appeals and co-operate in the first

appellate proceedings. The impugned orders are set aside and the

appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 15th day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th January, 2019. Yamini

ITA Nos.1082 & 1083/PUN/2016

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1.

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-2, Pune. 4. Pr. CIT-2, Pune. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “ए” / DR, ITAT, “A” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy // व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →