SMT. SAROJ P BHANDARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/MUM/2019Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 January 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the notices issued by the CIT(A) were properly served on the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of cash credit, subsequently levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal.

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, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Satish R. Mody, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Dharm Veer Singh, DR
Hearing: 13/01/2020Pronounced: 22/01/2020

ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2009-10 on 31.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs.6,34,700/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 29.01.2014 by making addition of Rs.14,57,558/- on account of cash credit. Thereafter, the AO levied a minimum penalty of Rs.4,81,203/- u/s 271(1)(c) with a finding

Smt. Saroj Pankaj Bhandari Rs.14,57,558/-.

3.

Aggrieved by the penalty levied by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 02.08.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for the reason that though the case was posted on several occasions, there was no compliance by the assessee.

4.

Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that a fair opportunity should have been given to the appellant by the Ld. CIT(A) and that the case be decided on merits.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). He refers to para 4 of the impugned order. Thus it is submitted by him that there is no merit in the contentions of the assessee asking for more reasonable opportunity.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned at para 4 that there was no compliance by the assessee before him on 22.05.2015, 08.02.2018 and 05.04.2018. In respect of the date of hearing on 05.02.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned “Appellant filed adjournment letter saying the Accountant” which is not complete. From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is not clear whether the notices issued by him fixing the case for hearing were served on the assessee or not.

In view of the above facts, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to him to make an order afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the Smt. Saroj Pankaj Bhandari Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the 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 →