JITENDRA B SALECHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1218/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the possibility of valid reasons for non-appearance. Principles of natural justice were invoked to provide another opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance. The assessee challenged the penalty levied by the AO and the ex-parte order of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity and whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Smt. Gaikwad, DR
Hearing: 07.09.2021Pronounced: 08.09.2021

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)-21, Mumbai, passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds;

"1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 3,33,720/- u/s 271(1)(c). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed erred in law and facts in not considering the submissions made by the appellant and deciding the appeal ex-parte.

Jitendra B Salecha, Mumbai. - 2 -

3.

The appellant contends that he has not committed any default in terms of sec. 271(1)(c) and hence the penalty of Rs. 3,33,720/- has been unjustly levided having regard to the facts of the case and the law prays that the same be deleted in toto.

4.

The appellant craves permission to add, alter, amend or vary to or any of the above grounds of appeal

on or before the hearing of the appeal.

2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

3. We heard the Ld.DR 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 written 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 the assessing officer. We on perusal of the CIT(A) found that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued the notice 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.

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 Jitendra B Salecha, Mumbai. - 3 - 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 08.09.2021.

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 →