C S M ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCW19(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 766/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2025AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found the assessee's reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) to be sufficient cause. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, directing the assessee to present its case with evidence.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 31,75,613/- and levied a penalty of Rs. 9,81,263/- under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, citing inadvertent non-receipt of notices for hearings before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) and if the appeal should be heard on merits.

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, B BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: HONBLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HONBLE SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 17.01.2025 for Assessment Year 2014-15 conforming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

(AY 2014-15) C S M Enterprises The AO passed assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 on 24.03.2022 making addition of Rs.31,75,613/- of the Act. Thereafter, AO levied penalty of Rs.9,81,263/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the same.

Now, assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee has inadvertently not noticed the notices for hearings. He prayed for an opportunity before the ld.CIT(A) to prosecute the case diligently. The ld.DR relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.

4.

Though we some extent concur with the submissions of Ld.DR, however, keeping in mind the reasons given, we are of the view that the reasons given for the non-appearance before the ld.CIT(A) is seems sufficient cause. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merits. Needless to say, that the ld.CIT(A) will follow the principle of natural justice and grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on merits. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case with all evidence and documents, if any, forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the appeal proceedings on merits as per law.

Order pronounced in open Court on the 28th day of August, 2025, in Chennai.

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 →