PERENNIAL DESIGNS INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,BENGALURU vs. ITO,WARD-19(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2285/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 February 2020AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was confirmed without proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order based on available material.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The procedural fairness in the appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: MRS. DIVA SINGH

Hearing: 03.02.2020

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 03.02.2020 Date of 06.02.2020 02.l05005 20 pronouncement O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 02.01.2018 of CIT(A)-New Delhi pertaining to 2013-14 assessment year on various grounds including lack of opportunity of being heard.

2.

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Considering the material available on record, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee/appellant on merits, after hearing the ld. Sr. DR

3.

The relevant facts of the case are that as a result of addition made in the quantum, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. The explanation in the penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer was not accepted leading to the filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee appears to have relied upon some Page 1 of 3

Perennial Designs International P. Ltd. vs. ITO written submissions challenging the order passed on legal grounds. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) considering the material available on record, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order leading to the filing of the present appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that no one was present on behalf of the assessee. On going through the grounds raised

, it appears that some written submissions and oral submissions appear to have been relied upon by the assessee. Since there is no discussion thereon the assessee’s right to be heard which admittedly does not appear to have been waived has been compromised. Accordingly in the interests of substantial justice, the impugned order is set aside back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee in its own interest, is advised to participate fully and fairly in the proceeding before the CIT(A). It is made clear that failing which the ld. Commissioner Appeals would be at liberty to pass an order on the basis of material available on record. Said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself on 06th February, 2020.

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 →