M/S. ORACLE SOLUTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE-2, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2069/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 January 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Departmental Representative could not provide findings from the CIT(Appeals) regarding the limitation issue. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee argued that the CIT(Appeals) passed a non-speaking order and that the penalty order was barred by limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) passed a speaking order and whether the penalty order was barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Ms. Reshu Agarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 07.01.2020Pronounced: 22.01.2020

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Bangalore passed under Section 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ldAr of the assessee filed adjournment application but the same was rejected and the appeal was heard. The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative has argued the Ground of Appeal

No.4.1 and emphasized that the CIT (Appeals) has not considered the assessee submissions and passed non speaking order. Further the penalty order passed is barred by limitation. Whereas the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals).

3. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the learned Authorized Representative has restricted the arguments on non consideration of submissions of the assessee by the CIT (Appeals) and limitation of passing penalty order. When a query was raised by the bench to LdDr, with respect to the findings, on limitation of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. DR could not point out the observations of the CIT(Appeals) on this ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Hence, We considering the submissions and facts are of the opinion that the revenue will not be at a loss if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and Restore the entire disputed issue to the file of CIT (Appeals) for adjudication afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of assessee for statistical purposes.

4. In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd Jan., 2020.

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 →