KANDASAMY RAMESHKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3156/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order without the participation of the assessee. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication, and the assessee was directed to appear diligently.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) without affording proper opportunity to the assessee is sustainable. Whether the case should be 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, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 18.02.2025Pronounced: 20.02.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.09.2024 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] and pertains to assessment year 2014-15, where the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 26.06.2019.

1.

The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the penalty of Rs. 2,94,923/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing the proper opportunity to the assessee, and therefore, it is requested that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand, the ld.CIT-DR stated that the Ld.CIT(A)- NFAC has given enough opportunities before passing the order on 18.09.2024 and hence, the order of Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC may please be confirmed.

5.

We have heard both the parties and carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.2,94,923/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed by the A.O due to the non-compliance of the assessee. The Ld. A.R. has submitted that the 3 -: Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without participation of the assessee. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and to be diligent in submitting the relevant details for the adjudication of the case as and when called for. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 20th February, 2025.

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 →