MARUT PAPER PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR, KANPUR
Facts
The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 47,21,400/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, which was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal *in limine* for want of prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order on merits and violated the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a *de novo* appellate order in accordance with law, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal in limine for want of prosecution without addressing its merits and passing a speaking order as mandated by law.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c), Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.
This appeal vide I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2023 has been filed by the
assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 against impugned appellate order
dated 03/10/2023 (Appeal No. CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10788/2015-16 of
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short].
In this case, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’)
amounting to Rs.47,21,400/- was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide
impugned appellate order dated 03.10.2023.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the
aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 03.10.2023 of learned CIT(A).
At the time of hearing, learned Authorized counsel for the assessee
submitted that the impugned appellate order passed by learned CIT(A) is
not speaking order on merits. He further submitted that the learned
CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine for want of
prosecution without going into the merits of the case. In view of
foregoing, he submitted that the dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s.
271(1)(c) of the Act should be restored back to the file of learned CIT(A)
with a direction to pass denovo appellate order, in accordance with law
after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the
penalty order passed by the learned AO and on the impugned appellate
order of the learned CIT(A), but left the matter to the discretion of the
Bench.
After perusing the materials on record and after hearing of both
sides, we find that impugned order passed by learned CIT(A) is not a
speaking order on the merits of the case. Instead, he has passed a
summary order dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine without going
in to the merits of the case. This is in violation of requirements described
u/s. 250(6) of the Act.
In view of the foregoing, the impugned appellate order of the
learned CIT(A) is set aside and the dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act is restored back to the learned CIT(A) with a
direction to poass denovo order in accordance with law after providing
reasonable opportunity to the assessee and duly adhering to
requirements of passing a speaking order on merits which contained in
Section 250(6) of the Act. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed
of in accordance with law with aforesaid directions and order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for
statistical purposes.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 05/01/2026)
Sd/. Sd/. (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Vice President Accountant Member
Dated:05/01/2026 Aks/-
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T.,
