ROLTA DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. THROUGH NEHA JAIN NEMANI, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) despite opportunities. This irresponsive conduct led to the ex-parte order. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to grant a last opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative, refraining from seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was also directed to ensure the observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed on these terms, setting aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and the penalty order of the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2021-22 declaring a nil total income and a business loss of Rs. 3,92,12,935/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 29,82,56,38,182/- and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for misreporting and underreporting of income. A penalty of Rs. 15,27,13,52,986/- was imposed by the Assessing Officer via an order dated 23.06.2023. The assessee appealed this penalty order to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte via an order dated 29.04.2024. The assessee has now filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by sustaining the penalty order passed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 15,27,13,52,986/-, by dismissing the assessee's appeal ex-parte? Assessee's Contention: The learned representative for the assessee argued that the impugned order was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice, and prayed for the order to be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR submitted that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by the learned CIT(A) but did not avail it, and therefore, supported the impugned order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2020- 21/10309144 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional 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.] 2021-22, wherein assessee’s appeal against the penalty order dated 23.06.2023 passed u/s. 270A of the Act, has been dismissed ex-parte by the learned CIT(A).
The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22, declaring total income as Nil with current year business loss of Rs. 3,92,12,935/-. Subsequently, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 29,82,56,38,182/- vide order dated 26.12.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Acct and penalty proceedings u/s. 270A were also initiated separately for misreporting of income leading to under reporting of income. Learned assessing officer imposed penalty of Rs. 15,27,13,52,986/- vide penalty order dated 23.06.2023.
Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex- parte.
Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer, levying penalty of Rs. 15,27,13,52,986/- u/s. 270A of the Act.
In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing.
Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional 6. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties.
Learned representative for the assessee has, at the very outset informed that impugned order has been passed by learned CIT(A) ex-parte, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Prayed to set aside the impugned order.
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.
We notice that the assessee did neither respond to the various notices issued by the learned assessing officer nor did he respond before learned CIT(A) despite afforded opportunity of hearing. The irresponsive conduct of the assessee resulted in the ex-parte impugned order under compulsion. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford last opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits afresh. 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 to be decided by learned CIT(A). 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 observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed.
Rolta Defence Technology Systems Pvt. Ltd. Through Neha Jain Nemani, Resolution Professional 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms. Impugned order dated 29.04.2024 and penalty order dated 23.06.2023 are set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 29.10.2024.
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026