M/S ETISALAT DB TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED IN LIQUIDATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TP-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1711/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider their adjournment request and illegally confirmed the penalty. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had issued notices but received no response.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing an ex-parte order without considering the adjournment request and confirming the penalty. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271G was illegal and unjustified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271G,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri. Hiro Rai.AR
For Respondent: Shri. Satya Pinisetty.DR
Hearing: 01.12.2021Pronounced: 02.12.2021

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, passed u/s 271G and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds;

"1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order. He has failed to consider and appreciate the request for adjournment filed before him. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the levy

M/s. Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt Ltd, In Liquidation, Mumbai. - 2 - of the Penalty u/s 271G of Rs. 62,26,443/-. He has failed to appreciate that the notice regarding the penalty and also the order levying the penalty were illegal, unjustified and unwarranted. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, to alter or to amend the above grounds of appeal.

2. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte for non prosecution of appeal and prayed for an opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case on merits with the evidences before the appellate authority. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

3. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order considering the fact that there is no appearance nor any submissions are filed by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of levy of penalty by the assessing officer. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing, but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not inclined to prosecute the appeal.

M/s. Etisalat DB Telecom Pvt Ltd, In Liquidation, Mumbai. - 3 -

4.

We find that the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty by the A.O. and there could be various reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.12.2021.

More judgments on Section 271G

All 156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →