FARZANA SHAKTI SAUDAGAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1068/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2021AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication, granting another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, failing which the CIT(A) could pass an order based on the available material.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. The ITAT noted the absence of the assessee during the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed when the assessee failed to appear before the appellate authority.

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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR

O R D E R

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 →