SHRI JITENDRA D. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5912/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 June 2021AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is not sustainable. It emphasized that orders must adhere to principles of natural justice and that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the case on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the sustainment of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A)'s order was based on the assessee's lack of compliance and failure to provide submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case, and if the CIT(A) has a duty to pass a speaking order on the substantive issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Hearing: 02.06.2021

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 10.06.2019 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2006-07, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,82,230/- by basically dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

2.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and perused the records. We note that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on merits is as under:

5.2.2 There was no compliance to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings. No written submissions were filed. No statement of facts was filed along with Form 35. There is nothing on record to rebut the finding of the ld. A.O. There is no material or cause to interfere with the order of the ld. AO. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

3.

As a matter of fact, the A.O.’s penalty order is also on the same line and after narrating the fact, he has mentioned that since there was no response by the assessee to notice, the A.O. is levying penalty.

(A.Y. 2006-07) Shri Jitendra D. Shah vs. ITO

4.

We find that the aforesaid order laconic and non speaking basically dismissing the appeal for non prosecution is not sustainable. It is settled law that even administrative orders have to be consistent with rules of natural justice. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT(A) to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

5.

For this proposition, we place reliance upon the following the case laws: 1. CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 154 DTR 302 (Bom) 2. CIT vs. S. Chenniappa Mudalliar [1969] 74 ITR 1 (SC) 6. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.06.2021

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 →