NIZAMMUDIN F. SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6331/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 April 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee should have been given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte. The assessee contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to present their case, while the department argued sufficient opportunities were provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and sustaining the penalty without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HONBLEShri Nizammudin F. Shaikh v.

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Shah
For Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad
Hearing: 26.03.2019Pronounced: 05.04.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane, [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 03.07.2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in passing the order exparte as well as in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

(A.Y: 2010-11) Shri Nizammudin F. Shaikh 2. At the outset Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed order exparte, without providing one more opportunity to submit his case. He prayed that the appeals may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR objecting to the submissions of the Ld. Counsel and referring to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that, Ld.CIT(A) had given sufficient opportunity but the assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order.

4.

On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), we find that one more opportunity should have been given to the assessee to prosecute the appeal. We have also observed that the assessee should have cooperated in the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without remaining absent and attended the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, the assessee is now directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without fail. With these observations this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.

(A.Y: 2010-11) Shri Nizammudin F. Shaikh 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 05th April, 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 →