M/S TRITON COMMERCIAL (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 273/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 December 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the ITAT due to non-appearance. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not considered assessment records and had not passed an order on merits, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice and adjudicated the appeal on merits. Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16/12/2019Pronounced: 31/12/2019

सुनवाईक�तार�ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक�तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.A.L. Saini, AM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Kolkata in appeal no. 10112/CIT(A)-2/17-18, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 20/06/2017.

2.

At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.

M/s Triton Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year:2014-15 3. We have heard ld. D.R. for the revenue and perused the material available on record. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the assessment records and as well as assessment order to adjudicate the issue involved in assessee’s appeal. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merits and did not examine the defective notice issued by Department u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, hence it is a violation of principle of natural justice. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the effected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.12.2019

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 →