MENORA CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 22 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7488/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 February 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and attend hearings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to repeated adjournments. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) leading to an ex-parte order.

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI G. MANJUNATH

For Respondent: Smt. Jyothilakshmi Nayak

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging 4th the order dated October 2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–25, Mumbai, confirming the penalty imposed of ` 4,55,517 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act").

2.

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case despite service of notice.

2 Menora Corporation There is no application by the assessee seeking adjournment either. Therefore, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on the basis of material available on record.

3.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, while completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made couple of additions aggregating to ` 14,74,163. On the basis of such additions, the Assessing Officer initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed an order on 20th September 2013, imposing penalty of ` 4,55,517, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Against the penalty order so passed, the assessee preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, due to repeated adjournment sought by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose off assessee’s appeal ex–parte by the impugned order confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Having perused the facts on record and considering the submission of the learned Departmental Representative, we are of the view that the assessee deserves an opportunity to advance his case against the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which could not be availed due to ex–parte disposal of the appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

3 Menora Corporation Without entering into the controversy of for whose fault the appeal was disposed off ex–parte, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to his file for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to respond to the notice of hearing and co–operate in disposal of the appeal without seeking any unnecessary adjournment. With the aforesaid observations, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.02.2020

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 →