M/S. YOGENDRA INTERNATIONAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee claimed the notices were never received.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without proper service of hearing notices. Whether there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 17.01.2018 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty of Rs.79,401/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 23.03.2015, the total income of the assessee was determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs.10,32,640/- as against the income of Rs.7,75,675/- M/s. Yogendra International declared in the return of income after making certain additions to the total income of the assessee on account of disallowance of various expenses. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in support of the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.79,401/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) was challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearings from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his appellate order dated 17.01.2018 passed ex-pate thereby confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c). Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notices of hearings fixed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) were never received by the assessee and none, therefore, could appear on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) on said dates of hearings. Keeping in view this reason given by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the non- appearance of the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on M/s. Yogendra International merit after giving the assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2018.
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 Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026