BALACHANDRAN A. PILLAI,ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT-2, KALYAN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee being an individual, decided to provide another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to make an effective representation before the first appellate authority, leading to an ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard before the appellate authority and whether the penalty was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by confirmation of certain penalty of Rs.9.00 Lacs u/s. 271D by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [CIT (A)], vide Appeal No.76-THN/14-15, order dated 15/05/2018, the assessee is under further appeal before us.
During hearing, although none was present for assessee, however, it could be borne out of impugned order that it is an ex-parte order since Balachandran A. Pillai Assessment Year: 2011-12 the assessee failed to make effective representation before first appellate authority. The Ld. DR pleaded for dismissal of appeal.
After careful consideration, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and in view of the fact that the assessee is an individual, the bench deems it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate his claim forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to dispose-off the appeal on the basis of material on record.
Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09th November, 2020.
Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 09/11/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026