S.MANIVANNAN,VELLORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE I, VELLORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2166/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 March 2021AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially declared interest income and claimed expenses. During scrutiny, the assessee revised the income, admitting a higher amount. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee with an opportunity to present their case, and whether the penalty was levied correctly.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 57

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 27.01.2021Pronounced: 10.03.2021

आदेश / O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in dated 31.05.2018 for the AY 2014-15. Besides challenging the confirmation of levy of penalty of Rs.6,51,980/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the grounds of appeal, the ld.Counsel for the assessee vehemently agitated the ex parte order passed by the Ld.CIT(A).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income for the AY 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.7,19,59,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has offered interest income under the head "other sources" for Rs.77,75,811/-and has claimed expenses under section 57 of the Act. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO has asked the assessee to furnish the details towards interest receipt with evidences. The assessee there after filed revised statement of income admitting at Rs.98,85,785/- instead of Rs.77,75,811/- as admitted in original computation. Thus, the difference of Rs.21,09,974/- was brought to tax. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has filed an adjournment petition, which was not considered by the Ld.CIT(A) and decided the penalty appeal suo motu without giving an opportunity to the assessee to represent his case before the appellate authority and prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). On the other hand, the Ld.DR dutifully supported the order of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below.

5.

On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the assessee has filed adjournment letter and the Ld.CIT(A) has not granted adjournment and decided the penalty appeal based on the information given in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Thus, it is a fact that the assessee was not given proper opportunity to represent the case against the levy of penalty during the course of appellate proceedings, since the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the adjournment petition of the assessee. Under the above facts and circumstances, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to afford the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the penalty appeal in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 10th day of March, 2021, in Chennai.

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 →