VEE THREE ENTERTAINMENT P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3228/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 December 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly served with a hearing notice by the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return admitting a loss, but the Assessing Officer made a significant addition to capital gains, leading to a penalty. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) before confirming the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 24.11.2020Pronounced: 22.12.2020

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai dated 29.06.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short] and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 08.11.2014 admitting a loss of ₹.29,740/-.

The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Against statutory notices, the assessee furnished the details as called for. After considering the submissions and accounts of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.5,58,75,763/- after making addition towards income from capital gains. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹.1,20,91,970/-. On appeal against the penalty order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Besides challenging confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee has also challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) by raising specific ground. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was never served with the hearing notice and prayed that the assessee may be permitted to represent its case before the appellate authority by giving adequate opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the orders of authorities below.

4.

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

On perusal of the appellate order, we find that though the assessee was issued with notice of hearing, but, there was no mention about service of notice to the assessee to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we are of the view that the assessee was not given proper notice of hearing to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, direct the ld. CIT(A) to afford one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merits.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 22nd December, 2020 at 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 →