BALACHANDRAN A. PILLAI,ULHASNAGAR vs. DCIT-2, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2863/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 November 2020AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

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?

Section 271D

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

For Respondent: Shri Oommen Tharian-Ld. Sr. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →