M/S. TECNOVATE INDIA INNOVATIONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1323/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 November 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Income-tax Department within one month.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and subsequently before the ITAT, despite opportunities. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty due to non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the assessee failed to appear before the appellate authorities. The need to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU

For Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT(DR)
Hearing: 18/11/2019Pronounced: 27/11/2019

O R D E R PerPAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ICIT(A)-7, Bengaluru, passed u/s 271)(1)(c) and 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short].

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. Further on examination of the CIT(A)’s order, we found none appeared in the appellate proceedings also. Therefore, considering the grounds of appeal and the submissions before lower

Page 2 of 3 authorities, the CIT(A) has passed the order confirming penalty.

3.

Learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the CIT(A) and due to non-appearance by the assessee, the CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty and dismissed the appeal.

4.

We heard the submissions of the learned DR and perused material. We found the CIT(A) has granted sufficient opportunities to the assessee but for various reasons, the assessee has not appeared in the appellate proceedings. Therefore,we, considering the principles of natural justice are of the opinion that it is appropriate to restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) but considering the facts on record with respect to non-appearance in spite of issuing notices on various dates in appellate proceedings and the assessee chose not to appear which cannot be overlooked. Therefore, we are of the substantive opinion that the assessee should be provided an opportunity of hearing but with payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the Income-tax Department within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, we restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the Page 3 of 3 matter afresh and adjudicate on merits. Further, the assessee shall submit proof of payment of cost with Tribunal and appellate authority. Further, it is nevertheless to mention that the CIT(A) should provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file evidences and documents in support of case and the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the information expeditiously for early disposal of the appeal and we order accordingly.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →