NAZARE VIKAS KARYKARI SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LTD,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANDHARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1210/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2022AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee may not have intended to abandon its appeal, given it was served only once. Therefore, to ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B was decided ex parte by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that it was not properly served with notices for the appeal hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without ensuring proper service of notice to the assessee, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 is against the CIT(A)- 7, Pune’s order dated 05-04-2018 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-7/Wd.1/11077/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”.

2.

None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. Heard the department. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing section 271B penalty of Rs. 1,41,600/-, it transpires during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge affirming the same has been passed ex parte. Mr. Walimbe vehemently argued in the light of CIT(A)’s observation in para 4 page 2 that he had afforded ample opportunities of hearing to the tax-payer. The facts however, remain that the assessee had been served only once on 10-1-2018 and therefore, it can hardly be presumed that it did not intend to pursue its lower appeal per se. Faced with this situation, we are of the view that larger interest of justice would be met in case learned CIT(A) re-decides the assessee’ appeal afresh in three effective opportunities. Ordered accordingly.

Nazare Vikas Karyakari Seva Sah. Society Ltd. A.Y. 2014-15 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →