KALE ENTERTAINMENT & RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6006/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2021AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal agreed that the assessee was negligent but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the confirmation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The assessee sought an adjournment, but the revenue pointed out that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee's previous non-appearance before the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard before the appellate authority despite previous negligence, to ensure principles of natural justice are upheld.

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 PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld.DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kale Entertainment & Resorts ITO -12(3)(2) 1st Floor Aaykar Bhavan Private Limited बनाम/ 8, Nandadeep, Kailashpuri M.K. Road Vs. Upper Govind Nagar Mumbai-400 020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCK-6915-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/03/2021 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.3.08 Lacs, the assessee is in further appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the assessee, vide letter dated 08/03/2021, sought adjournment. However, Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that the impugned order is an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to appear before learned first appellate authority.

2.

Upon perusal of case records, we agree that the assessee remained negligent in attending the appellate proceedings. However, keeping in view the principle of natural justice, we are inclined to provide another opportunity of hearing to assessee to substantiate his case before learned first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter 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.

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

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 →