MR A G FERNANDES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24 1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7362/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 November 2021AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the penalty matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could decide based on available material.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT and the CIT(A). The Revenue requested dismissal of the appeals. The ITAT noted the assessee's negligence but decided to grant another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to appear before the appellate authorities despite previous non-appearances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 16.11.2021Pronounced: 16.11.2021

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री भनोज कुभाय अग्रवार, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपीऱ सुं./ & 7363/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Mr. A G Fernandes The Income Tax Officer Room No.201 Ward 24(1)(1) 7th Sarkar Palace CHSL Room No.703, Floor, बनाम/ S.V. Road, Amboli Piramal ChamBers, Lalbaug Vs. Andheri West Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 058 (अपीऱार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी ऱेखा सुं./PAN No. AAAPF1560C अऩीराथी की ओय े / Appellant by : None प्रत्मथी की ओय े / Respondent by : Sh. Mehul Jain – Ld. Sr. DR ुनवाई की तायीख / Date of hearing: 16.11.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date of pronouncement : 16.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER Bench:

1.

During hearing of these appeals, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals by drawing our attention to the fact that the assessee failed to appear before learned first appellate authority also. In these appeals, the assessee is challenging levy of penalties u/s 271(1)(c) as well u/s 271(1)(b).

2.

Though we concur with the submissions of Ld. DR that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings, however, keeping in view the principle of natural

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 →