RAJESH R SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6341/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2019AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided sufficient evidence of multiple adjournments sought by the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

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

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was sustained without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

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 “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HONBLEShri Rajesh R. Singh v. Shri Pratik Jain

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain &, Shri Pratik Jain
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Hearing: 26.07.2019Pronounced: 08.08.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 21.03.2016 for the A.Y. 2007-08 in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

(A.Y: 2007-08) Shri Rajesh R. Singh 2. At the time of hearing, at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order sustaining the penalty without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on hearing the assessee.

4.

On hearing both the parties and perusing the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that, though the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that on several occasions the assessee could not appear in spite of issue of notices, no specific instance was brought on record except on the date of hearing i.e., 06.09.2013, the assessee sought adjournment through his authorized representative. Taking totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case. Thus, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee will cooperate in the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and no adjournment will be taken without reasonable cause. We direct the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking adjournments without any cause. The Ld.CIT(A) shall dispose of the (A.Y: 2007-08) Shri Rajesh R. Singh appeal after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

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 →