Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in trading of metals, filed its return for AY 2009-10. The case was re-opened and income was assessed at Rs. 14,61,299/- after additions. A penalty of Rs. 2,56,773/- was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal noted that although the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, the impugned order was not based on a substantial discussion of merits. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to be diligent and for the CIT(A) to observe principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal ex-parte without substantial discussion on merits is sustainable, and if the case should be remitted back for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(C), 147, 143(3), 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai– 30/10030/2019–20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2009-10, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte against the penalty order Mr. Nitesh Shah dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals under the name and style of proprietorship concern M/s. Virami Steel. The appellant has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.3,56,976/-. Thereafter, the case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act. The assessing officer passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 16.03.2015 and assessed the income of Rs. 14,61,299/- after making addition of Rs. 11,04,323/- on account of non-genuine purchases. The proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income chargeable to tax and learned assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,56,773/- vide penalty order dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the penalty order before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte.
Appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the income tax authority has erred in levying the said penalty.
None responded for the assessee. Heard learned DR and perused the records.
Mr. Nitesh Shah 6. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order.
On perusal of the impugned order, we notice that learned CIT(A) has afforded various opportunities of hearing to the assessee on 15.09.2021, 30.08.2022, 17.03.2023, 12.06.2023, 27.06.2023, 04.07.2023, 26.07.2023 and 28.05.2024 but for no avail. It is an accepted fact that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The learned CIT(A) was compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order in such circumstances. However, it is further noticed the impugned order is not based on any substantial discussion on the merits, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any Mr. Nitesh Shah observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28.11.2024.