MANJU SHREE SYNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 338/JODH/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 May 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not mention issuing notice for hearing to the assessee. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer made additions based on discrepancies between the return and Form 26AS. A penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) on the undeclared income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was levied without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (SMC

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI

For Respondent: DR Assessee By None
Pronounced: 07.05.2019

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.05.2018 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer.

2.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the sustenance of penalty amounting to Rs. 18,500/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) c) of the Act .

3.

During the course of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the

assessee neither any adjournment was sought. I, therefore, proceeded ex-

parte qua the assessee.

4.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of

income on 27.9.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 2,60,250/- . However, the

Assessing Officer assessed the income at Rs. 7,99,810/- vide order dated

19.3.2015 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The

additions were made on account of difference in the return filed in Form No.

26AS and the amount as shown in the books of account. The Assessing

Officer also levied the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on the income less

declared by Rs. 59,262/-Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 18,500/- was levied.

5.

Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who

decided the appeal ex-parte by observing in para 3 of the impugned order as

under:-

"During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has filed written submissions in "dak". After going through he written submissions field during the course of appellate proceedings and the order of the Assessing Officer, the appeal is decided as under".

6.

Now the assessee is in appeal.

7.

The Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

8.

I have considered the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the

material available on record.

9.

In the present case is it noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) nowhere mentioned that the notice for hearing was issued and served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 07.05.2019)

Sd/- (N.K. SAINI) Vice President Dated : 07.05.2019 “आर.के.” आदेशक���त�ल�पअ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकरआयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध, आयकरअपील!यआ�धकरण, च$डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, Jodhpur 6. गाड'फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

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 →