VIJAYBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 859/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 July 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)5 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order and directed the CIT(A) to issue a physical hearing notice by RPAD and then pass a fresh order on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) confirming a penalty. The assessee contended that they had requested no email notices, but the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was justified without providing proper hearing opportunities and adherence to communication preferences.

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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI T.R SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 15.07.2025

O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against ex-parte appellate order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] relating to the Asst. Year 2011-12.

2.

The case of the assessee is that in Form No.35, it was specifically mentioned not to send notice via email. However, Vijaybhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2– the Ld.CIT(A), passed a cryptic one paragraph order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Further the impugned order does not carry the dates of hearing given to the assessee. Thus, we hereby set-aside the ex-parte appellate order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) with the direction to issue a physical hearing notice by RPAD to the assessee and then pass order on merits and in accordance with the provisions of Law.

3.

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

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 →