SAVAIR ENERGY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6206/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2021AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's negligence, decided to provide another opportunity based on the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after a fresh hearing for the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the first appellate authority despite notices, leading to the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee also remained absent during the tribunal hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice in appellate proceedings.

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, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar- Ld. DR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.6206/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No.6208/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. At the time of hearing of these appeals, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. DR pleaded for dismissal of appeals by pointing out that the assessee failed to appear before first appellate authority also. In these appeal, the assessee is contesting confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which has been levied by Ld.AO against certain additions of alleged bogus purchases. From the impugned orders, it is evident that despite notices, the assessee has failed to attend appellate proceedings and consequently, the penalty has been confirmed by learned first appellate authority.

2.

Although we concur with Ld. DR’s submissions that the assessee remained negligent, however, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, the bench deems it fit to provide another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before learned first appellate authority. Therefore, impugned orders are set-aside and the matter, for both the years, is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate its claim failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with adjudication on the basis of material on record.

3.

Both the appeals stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 5th April, 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 →