M/S. TARUN SHARMA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 46(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2534/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 February 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an ex parte order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13 was heard. The CIT(A) had passed the order without the assessee's appearance and without proper proof of notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) without hearing the assessee and without proper proof of notice service is sustainable. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271D was adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH: KOLKATA

Hearing: 14.01.2020Pronounced: 19.02.2020

ORDER

Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-14, Kolkata dated 26.07.2018 for AY 2012-13.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal of assessee is against the ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of initiation of proceedings u/s. 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and thereafter levy of penalty u/s. 271D of the Act.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →