Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A.K. GARODIA
Date of hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2017 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on common grounds and for the sake of reference, we extract the grounds raised in appeal .
“1. The order of the CIT(A) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The appellant denies himself liable to a penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 271F of the Act, for the impugned assessment year 2010-11 on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of penalty, when the appellant did not have taxable income and the appellant was not required to file the return of income on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of penalty when the order of penalty has been passed without jurisdiction.
5. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in not considering the fact that the appellant was under the bonafide belief that since the income on interest was covered by TDS and there was a refund for the assessment year, the filing of income tax returns was not necessary to be filed.
The learned C!T(A) was not justified in failing to appreciate the fact that the penal provisions are not automatic and the learned assessing officer has not exercised her discretion in imposing penalty as per the provisions of section 273 B of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal.
In view of the above and other grounds that may be taken at the time of the hearing the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”
During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Though the assessee has sought adjournment, but the CIT(Appeals) without accommodating the assessee, disposed the appeal ex parte.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of CIT(Appeals) be set aside and the matter restored to him for adjudication of the appeals after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of CIT(Appeals) with the submission that the CIT(Appeals) has afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, we find that before the CIT(Appeals) the assessee sought adjournment, but the assessee was not accommodated by the CIT(Appeals) and he has dismissed the appeal ex parte against the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to readjudicate the appeals afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
( A.K. GARODIA ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 31st October, 2017.