MAHESHKUMAR LALJIDAS PATEL,VISNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1020/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 August 2025AY 2013-14Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue by allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, the tribunal remanded the case back to the JCIT, Patan Range, Patan, for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee's submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced a penalty order under Section 271D for AY 2013-14. They failed to appear before the JCIT, resulting in an ex-parte order on 07.06.2019, and subsequently failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to another ex-parte order on 09.01.2024.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte penalty orders issued by the JCIT and CIT(A) were valid given the assessee's lack of an effective opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, AR
For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.08.2025Pronounced: 25.08.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 271D

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →