ANKUSH FINSTOCK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 689/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 June 2018AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without the benefit of the assessee's assistance. The Departmental Representative agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee-appellant filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2009-10. The appeal was filed with a delay of 21 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The impugned order from the CIT(A) was ex-parte as the appellant could not attend the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

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, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

ITA No. 689/Ahd/2018 Ankush Finstock Ltd Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar, AM and Ms. Madhumita Roy, JM] ITA No. 689/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ankush Finstock Limited ............…………......Appellant B-708, Fairdeal House, Opp. Xt. Zavier’s Ladies Hostel, Nr. Swastik Cross Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad [PAN : AAHCA 7833 R] Vs. Income Tax Officer ...........................Respondent Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Appearances by:

AL Thakkar for the Appellant Saurabh Singh for the Respondent

Date of concluding the hearing : 22.06.2018 Date of pronouncing the order : 26.06.2018

O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, AM:

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 1st December, 2017 passed by the by the CIT(A), Ahmedabad-5 in the matter of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

This appeal is time barred by 21 days but the assessee has moved a condonation petition seeking condonation of delay. Having perused the material and having heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and take up the matter on merits. 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and that the appellant could not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A). The impugned order is thus passed without the benefit of assistance by the assessee appellant and the assessee appellant is now in appeal before us.

4.

In response to a question from the Bench, learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed that he has no objection to the matter being remitted to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after giving yet another reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We think this is a fair approach and since the learned CIT(A) did not have the benefit of assistance from the

ITA No. 689/Ahd/2018 Ankush Finstock Ltd Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 2 assessee appellant, the matter should be remitted to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after giving yet another opportunity of hearing. In any case, there is no reason for an Appellate Forum being bypassed and the matter being taken up directly before us for adjudication on merits.

5.

In view of this discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. We order so.

6.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 26th June, 2018

Sd/- Sd/-

Ms. Madhumita Roy Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 26th day of June, 2018 **bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation: ................covered matter...26.06.2018... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: ... 26.06.2018.... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: …26.06.2018... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement: ..... 26.06.2018.. 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk : . …29.06.2018…. 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk : ……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: …. 8. Date of Despatch of the Order: ………………......

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 →