Loading judgment…
Facts
A survey and search action were conducted on Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and related entities, leading to a notice under Section 153C. An assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C was passed with an addition for unaccounted expenditure. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated and confirmed ex-parte by the AO and CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-response to notices.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) provided insufficient opportunity (less than 15 days) to the assessee to respond to the hearing notices, thus violating principles of natural justice. Citing a High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de-novo under Section 250(6) of the Act.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified when the assessee was not provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 153C, Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 133A, Section 132, Section 139, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (2), Raipur, C.G. ……….Respondent Appearances Assessee by: Mr Subash Agrawal, [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 15/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, The present appeal is filed by the assessee against DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075107538(1) dt. 27/03/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, Raipur-3, [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] which in turn leapt out of Assessment order passed u/s 153C passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur[‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment year 2015-16[‘AY’].
ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 4 Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT Briefly stated, facts of the case are that; a survey u/s 133A 2. was carried out at the business premises of M/s Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd along with search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted at the business/residential premises of M/s R. K. Transport and Construction Ltd., R. R. Fero Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Vedant Infrastructure, Parijat Barter Pvt. Ltd, Satyanarayan Agrawal 65A, Transport Nagar, Korba (C.G.). Consequently, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued upon the assessee, in response thereto the assessee company filed its submission & confirmed to treat the return of income filed by it u/s 139 of the Act the as the return filed u/s 153C of the Act. The said return was subjected to scrutiny wherein addition towards unaccounted expenditure ₹4,37,260/- was made and consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act was passed assessing total income at ₹2,87,45,000/-. In view thereof penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particular and furnished inaccurate particulars of income were initiated. In the course of such penalty proceedings the notices including show cause notice issued to the assessee went unattended. In the absence of any evidence seeking pardon from levy of penalty and rebuttable against such penalty proceedings, the consequential proceedings were ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 4
Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully challenged the former imposition before Ld. First Appellate Authority [‘Ld. FAA’]. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in the present appeal on as many as four grounds.
Without touching the merits and grounds of appeal, we have heard the rival parties on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused the material placed on record and considered the facts in the light of settled position of law. We observed that in the course of first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue assailed in appeal has provided barely two opportunities to the appellant assessee. It was also noted that vide notices dt 10/03/2025 & 19/03/2025 the hearings were fixed on 17/03/2025 and 24/03/2025 respectively. I n the event of no response from assessee, the proceedings were ceased ex-parte whereby the penalty was confirmed. A cursory look at these twin notices and time allowed thereby reveals that, these notices were issued allowing less than ‘reasonable period of fifteen days’ to respond.
ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 4 Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT 5. The Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’ has categorically held that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims. In the present case since twin notices of hearing allowed insufficient time and opportunity to the appellant, therefore the proceedings suffered from natural justice, thus necessitating us to grant one more reasonable opportunity to the appellant to comply with notices and contest the appeal on merits which can only be possible on remand of this case to Ld. CIT(A). In view thereof, without offering any comments on merits, we set-aside the impugned order and remand with a direction deal therewith de- novo in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Ordered accordingly.
In result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned herein before.
-S/d- -S/d- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Raipur/Dt: 16th September, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. 1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.