M/S. VIJAY CONSTRUCTION,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 791/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 July 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the penalty notice was valid. However, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-appearance. The assessee contended that they could not attend the hearing for valid reasons and sought another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's reasons for absence and whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was wrongly imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte – AR
For Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR
Hearing: 18/07/2022Pronounced: 19/07/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 18.06.2018, emanating out of order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune erred inpassing an ex-party order without appreciating the fact that due to valid and sufficient reasons Your Appellant could not attend the hearing and without considering the merit of the case, Your Appellant prays for set aside the matter to the CIT (Appeals) in the interest of principal of natural justice.Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld.Assessing Officer has erred in wrongly imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

A.Y. 2012-13 M/s.Vijay Construction Vs. ACIT, Cen.Circle-2, Nashik [A] to the tune of Rs.1,72,210/- which is requested toYourHonors to delete the same.”

2.

There is a delay in filing of appeal. The assessee filed an affidavit. For the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, delay condoned.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee filed appeal against the said penalty order before the ld.CIT(A). However, the ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 18.06.2018 dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A).

4.

The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee submitted that due to certain reasons, the assessee could not make any representation before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard.

5.

On the other hand, the ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We want to specifically mention here that we have studied the notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27.03.2015 vide which the penalty was initiated and observed

A.Y. 2012-13 M/s.Vijay Construction Vs. ACIT, Cen.Circle-2, Nashik [A] that the Assessing Officer(AO) has initiated penalty for concealment of income. In the impugned notice, the AO has rightly struck-off all non-applicable words. Thus, the notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a ‘proper valid notice’. However, since the assessee could not appear before the ld.CIT(A), the case is set-aside to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for re-adjudication after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th July, 2022.

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 →