SMT. K. HAJIRA BANU,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW-2(2), MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 590/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 March 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked proper discussion of the penalty issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was confirmed by the AO for penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) without sufficient opportunity. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, confirming the penalty without discussing the merits of the penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee and in violation of principles of natural justice.

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, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND Dr. M.L. MEENA

Hearing: 14.03.2022Pronounced: 15.03.2022

आदेश /O R D E R PER BENCH:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai in dated 30.01.2020. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai for the assessment year 2014-15 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide order dated 29.12.2016. The impugned

2 penalty was levied by the ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai vide his order dated 28.06.2017 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without affording sufficient opportunity in violation of principles of natural justice and passing ex-parte order.

3.

None is present from assessee’s side however Revenue is represented by ld. Senior DR, Shri Sajit Kumar.

4.

We have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noticed that the CIT(A) has posted the appeal for hearing on various dates during 2019 & 2020. Finally the CIT(A) passed order on 30.01.2020 but it is noticed that the CIT(A) simply confirmed the action of AO by quoting the Explanation (1) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and also noted that since the assessee failed to come forward to produce documentary evidence to substantiate the claims made, hence he confirmed the penalty. In our view, the order of CIT(A) is a non-speaking order on the issues because he has not discussed the creditors rather he has discussed what happened during assessment proceedings and not discussed what happened during penalty proceedings. In our view, as the assessee could not represent before CIT(A), one more chance be 3 provided to assessee to represent her case. To this, the ld.Senior DR stated that the CIT(A) has passed order on merits but when pointed out that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order of AO levying penalty, he could not show us how the CIT(A) has dealt with the issue on merits, as regards to levy of penalty. In term of these, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to avail this opportunity otherwise the CIT(A) will again constraint to pass ex-parte order. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the court on 15th March, 2022 at Chennai.

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 →