JANAHITHA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE
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?
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
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
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.
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)
- Sunil Shantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central…ITA 4576/MUM/2026[2002-03]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2002-03
- Kmp Expressways Limited, New Delhi vs JCIT, TDS-Range-75, DelhiITA 4224/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2012-13
- Vikas Agarwal, Bulandshahr vs ACIT, Central Circle, MeerutITA 6486/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
- Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, NagpurITA 517/NAG/2016[2012-13]Status: Disposed5 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
- Sub Registrar, Tamkuhiraj, Kushinagar vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 347/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: Fixed5 Dec 2024AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026