AGARWAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessment records and did not pass an order on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was heard ex parte as the assessee did not appear. The CIT(A) had not considered assessment records and had not passed an order on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the penalty appeal on merits and followed principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
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)-12, Kolkata in appeal no. 10104/CIT(A)-12/Kol/ITO, Ward-1(1)/2018- 19, 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 27/06/2017.
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 Agarwal Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963.
We have heard the 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 case. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merits. We note that ld. CIT(A) did not deal with 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.
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)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026