M/S SHUJAT HOSPITAL,AMROHA vs. ITO, MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2756/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 November 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 10.2.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Moradabad relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following ground:-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 without providing due and adequate opportunity of hearing. The action being arbitrary, erroneous, misconceived and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.”

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the exparte order, therefore, he requested that the issues involved in the appeal may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee was given sufficient opportunity for substantiating his claim, but he could not avail the same. Therefore, the order of the authorities below especially the impugned order may be upheld and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). After examining the impugned order, I am of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order and did not provide sufficient opportunity, as a result thereof, the assessee could not substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →