Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.06.2021