SARADA PHARMACY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 973/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 August 2018AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear for a hearing. The assessee had sought adjournment in a previous hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is justified. The need for affording sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’s order dated 21.03.2016, passed in case No. CIT(A),Kolkata-6/10440/Kol/2016-17 upholding Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of ₹45,324/- involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that CIT(A)’s lower appellate order affirming the impugned penalty has dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal challenging correctness of impugned penalty for non-prosecution on account of fact that it did not appear in lower appellate proceedings. Our attention is invited to pra-1 of the lower appellate order indicating two opportunities of hearings granted on 22.02.2018 and 15.03.2018. The assessee sought adjournment in the former instance. It admittedly did not appear in the latter opportunity of ITA No.973/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2006-07 Sarada Pharmacy Vs. ITO Wd-22(2) Kol. Page 2 hearing. Same clarifies that it is a case of single default on assessee’s part in not pursuing its legal remedy. We therefore restore the instant lis back to CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits after affording three effective opportunities of hearing as per law.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purpose in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 24/08/2018 (लेखा सद%य) ("या'यक सद%य) (M.Balaganesh) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp, Sr.P.S (दनांकः- 24/08/2018 कोलकाता । आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant-Sarada Pharmacy, 105B, Rash Behari Avenue Kolkata-29

2.

""यथ"/Respondent-ITO Ward-22(2), 54/1 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-16 3. संबं3धत आयकर आयु4त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु4त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. 7वभागीय "'त'न3ध, आयकर अपील"य अ3धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड< फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO आयकर अपील"य अ3धकरण, कोलकाता ।

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →