ISRAR MONUDDIN KHAN,PALGHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 4, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6758/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 March 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits and merely confirmed the penalty due to the assessee's non-cooperation. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A) order confirming a penalty of ₹10,000 levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was rightly levied without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 18.03.2019Pronounced: 18.03.2019

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], Appeal No. 402-THN/2015-16 vide order dated 20.09.2017. The ITAs No. 6758/Mum/2017 Assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4, Thane (in short ‘ACIT/ITO/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dated 04.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in levying the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to ₹ 10,000/-. For this assessee contested that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not allowed to the assessee and order is passed by CIT(A) in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 1: -

1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in levy penalty of ₹ 10,000 under section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 whereas the appellant has not been given reasonable opportunity of being hard and reasonable time for fulfillment of such requirement. Hence the appellant prays your honour to kindly wave off this penalty and due justice be given to him."

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →