SRI. LAKSHMANAPPA M.R.,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1255/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 July 2019AY 1996-973 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate their claims before the authorities. However, considering the reassessment was confirmed by the High Court, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the validity of penalty proceedings initiated after a survey operation, claiming insufficient opportunity and that the penalty order was barred by limitation. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal but had made submissions before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty proceedings and whether the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunity. The Tribunal also considered the limitation period for the penalty order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Hearing: 17.07.2019Pronounced: 25.07.2019

O R D E R

PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM :

1.

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bangalore passed under Section 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The main grievance of the assessee challenging the validity of initiating penalty proceedings. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we heard the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative. We found from the penalty order that no details were provided nor Respondent to the show cause

notice and, in the appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted that sufficient opportunity and time was not provided to him and that penalty order is barred by limitation. We found from the record that the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty order but could not substantiate with any evidence or explanations before the authorities. Considering the facts that there was a survey operation under Section 133A of the Act and the validity of Re-assessment was confirmed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, we restore the entire disputed issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) for adjudication afresh and assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall co-operate in submitting the explanations and evidence for early disposal of the appeal and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

3. In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2019.

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 →