M/S DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7934/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 July 2020AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of natural justice, remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate their case, and the CIT(A) was given liberty to decide based on the record if the assessee failed to do so.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 17,39,879/- under Section 271(1)(c) and their appeal against this penalty was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee filed a stay application before the ITAT against the penalty demand.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee should be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh adjudication.

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivaram- Ld. Sr. Counsel
For Respondent: Shri Udool Raj Singh, Ld. DR

SA No. 198/Mum/2020 & M/s. Daga Global Chemicals P. Ltd. ACIT-12(2)(1) 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan 101, Mehek Plaza बनाम/ Maharashtra Nagar Lane M.K. Road Vs. Off. L.T.Road, Borivali (West) Mumbai- 400 020. Mumbai- 400 092. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACD-2233-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : Dr. K.Shivaram- Ld. Sr. Counsel Revenue by : Shri Udool Raj Singh, Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/07/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/07/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. During hearing of stay application which is arising out of assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15, it transpired that the assessee has been saddled with penalty of Rs.17,39,879/- u/s 271(1)(c) vide penalty order dated 24/01/2019. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [CIT(A)], wherein the appeal got dismissed vide order dated 25/10/2019. The assessee has challenged the same before Tribunal. By way of this stay application, the assessee seek stay of penalty demand as confirmed by learned first appellate authority vide impugned order dated 25/10/2019.

2.

During hearing, it was noted that the order under challenge is an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to make effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). In the said background. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for assessee, Dr. K.Shivaram, pleaded for restoration of appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) to enable the assessee to defend his stand. Accordingly, the appeal itself was taken up for adjudication with the consent of both the sides.

3.

Keeping in view the submissions made by Ld. Sr. Counsel, we find that the order under challenge is an ex-parte order since the assessee failed to make any effective representative despite being provided with various opportunities of being heard as noted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 4 of the impugned order. Nevertheless, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and in line with the submission made by Ld. Sr. Counsel, the appeal stands remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re- adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his stand forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material on record. Keeping in view the quantum involved, every endeavor should be made for disposal of the appeal within a period of 6 months, if possible and practicable. We order accordingly.

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 →