RAJESH R SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026