VISION INFRACON (INDIA) PVT LTD,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 458/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 September 2025AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's quantum appeal was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remit the penalty appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that it would be in the interest of justice to await the outcome of the quantum appeal before deciding the penalty appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and to adjudicate the penalty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not delving into the merits of the case. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order arose from an assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee's representative argued that the assessee could not present their case before the CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order that violated the principle of natural justice. The assessee requested that the penalty appeal be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of a pending quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice, as the assessee could not represent their case. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned order was passed ex-parte because they were unable to represent their case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the order is vitiated on account of the violation of the principle of natural justice. The assessee further contended that their quantum appeal is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), and in the interest of justice, this penalty appeal should also be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR for the Revenue did not object to the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/09/2025Pronounced: 11/09/2025

Year: 2011-12 Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vision Infracon (India) Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward – 1(2)(5), 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, 130, Golden Plaza, Opp. J P Tower, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Tagore Road, 360001 Road, Rajkot – 360001 PAN :AACCV6558K (अपीलाथ�/assessee) : (��यथ�/Respondent) िनधा�रतीक�ओरसे/Assessee by Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura,Ld.AR राज�वक�ओरसे/Revenue by Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. d. Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 01/09/2025 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of Pronouncement Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commi passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ssioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 06.06.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 of the arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 of the arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee 2.At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugn assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). submitted that quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). submitted that quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this penalty appeal of the assessee may be remitte herefore, this penalty appeal of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of d back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as per the for fresh adjudication, as per the outcome of the quantum appeal quantum appeal Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessee contended that in the interest of Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessee contended that in the interest of Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessee contended that in the interest of justice, this penalty appeal may also be resorted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) justice, this penalty appeal may also be resorted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) justice, this penalty appeal may also be resorted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per outcome of quantum appeal of the assessee. for fresh adjudication as per outcome of quantum appeal of the assessee for fresh adjudication as per outcome of quantum appeal of the assessee

3.

On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the he ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the he ld. DR for the Revenue debarred from objecting the stand of the ld. Counsel.

4.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. materials brought on record. Considering the above facts, Considering the above facts, I note that since the quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. note that since the quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. note that since the quantum appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, I remit this penalty appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with CIT(A), therefore, I remit this penalty appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with CIT(A), therefore, I remit this penalty appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to adjudicate this pena the direction to adjudicate this penalty appeal as per the outcome of the lty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum appeal of the assessee. quantum appeal of the assessee. Therefore, without delving much deeper into without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)for de novo de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and re set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the mit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)to adjudicate the penalty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum to adjudicate the penalty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum to adjudicate the penalty appeal as per the outcome of the quantum appeal. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed appeal. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed appeal. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

5.

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

Order is pronounced in the open court on Order is pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →