JANAHITHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 279/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 August 2019AY 2013-142 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) upholding a penalty. The assessee argued that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, Advocate
For Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 23.07.2019Pronounced: 28.08.2019

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-6, Bangalore dated 14.11.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee are as under. “1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore - 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned CIT(A)') erred in upholding the action of the learned Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence & Criminal Investigation) (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned JD IT (I & CI)')in levying the penalty of Rs.55,000/- under the provisions of section 272A(2)(c) of the Act.

2. The order passed under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income tax Act is illegal and void ab initio and penalty levied is liable to be quashed.

3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He also submitted that in the year 2017, two notices were issued by earlier ld. CIT(A) but by the present ld. CIT(A) who passed the present order, only one notice was issued dated 16.10.2018 and although the assessee could not make compliance but ld. CIT(A) should have provided reasonable opportunity of being heard and since

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(c)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →