SRI. PERIYANA PRASANNA KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

The assessee has filed an appeal against the exparte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore passed u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has passed exparte order and only two dates of hearing was granted to the assessee and prayed for an opportunity before the appellate authority to substantiate with evidence in the appeal. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative objected to the submissions of the assessee.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the CIT (Appeals) has passed exparte order in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has referred to the judicial decisions and not decided the appeal of assessee on merit. Further the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that only two dates of hearing was granted and also the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity. We, on perusal of the CIT (Appeals) order found that the CIT (Appeals) dealt on the provisions of exparte order and dismissed the appeal. Considering the fact and submissions of the learned Authorised Representative, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and revenue shall not be at a loss if such opportunity is provided. Accordingly, we