CHETAN M JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4267/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2017AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to represent their case before the first appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at a higher amount than declared, leading to a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty ex-parte as the assessee could not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was justified, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the first appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Parmar
For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Date of Hearing – 09.11.2017 Date of Order – 23.11.2017

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28th March 2013, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–11, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of ` 1,62,006 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005–06.

2.

Brief facts are, the assessee an individual is carrying on business through his proprietary concern Copernicus. For the assessment year

2 Shri Chetan M. Joshi under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 31st October 2005, declaring total income of ` 2,51,280. The Assessing Officer after verifying the books of account and other relevant details completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20th December 2007, determining the total income at ` 9,00,490, after making a number of additions / disallowances. On the basis of additions made by the Assessing Officer proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated and ultimately the Assessing Officer passed an order imposing penalty of ` 1,62,006 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

The assessee challenged the penalty order by filing an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). As it appears, the first appellate authority disposed off assessee’s appeal ex–parte by confirming the penalty imposed.

4.

Learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee was unable to appear and represent his case before the first appellate authority. She submitted, assessee may be granted an opportunity to represent his case before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

5.

Learned Departmental Representative has not opposed the aforesaid contention of the assessee.

3 Shri Chetan M. Joshi 6. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent his case before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to him for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to respond to the notice of hearing to be issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and co–operate in finalization of proceedings.

7.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.11.2017

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 →