UNNIKRISHNAN N. NAIR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1153/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2019AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had multiple opportunities, there was non-compliance. However, it also observed that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of contract receipts. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the issue ex-parte without providing an opportunity to be heard and without passing a speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing an opportunity of being heard and by not passing a speaking order while confirming the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta Choudhary, AR
Hearing: 24.07.2019Pronounced: 24.07.2019

अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Ms. Sanjukta Choudhary, AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 24.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 24.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-34, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 11.12.2013. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 24(3)(4) Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 10.12.2008, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has not allowed opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decided the issue ex-parte. She stated that the only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty

271(1)(c) of the Act on an amount of ₹ 6,79,550/- on the charge that the assessee has not disclosed the contract receipts. The learned Counsel for the assessee also took us through the order of CIT(A) at para 7 and stated that the CIT(A) has also not adjudicate the issue on merits by speaking order. She referred to the para 7 of the CIT(A) order which read as under: -

“7. I have gone through the impugned penalty order and the submissions as above. It is evident that the appellant has not shown contract receipt amounting to ₹ 19,75,237/- and thereby surpassed its income in order to evade tax even after claiming the entire tax by way of TDS against the income. In the absence of any explanation/ reconciliation, the contract receipt amounting to ₹ 19,75,237/- which were not shown in the accounts has been added to the total income and levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. During the course of appellate proceedings also, inspite of several opportunities given, the appellant had failed to file any explanation/ reconciliation to substantiate his claim. In view of the above, I agree with the Assessing Officer that this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and hence the order of the Assessing Officer is confirmed.”

3.

Hence, the learned Counsel for the assessee request that the matter can be remitted back remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Departmental Representative has not objected for the same.

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 →