Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Per George George K., Judicial Member
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against CIT(A) order dated: 29.12.2015. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09.
Though several grounds are raised in this appeal, only two issues arise for our consideration , namely,
Page 2 of 5 i) Whether the CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee, in limine without going into the issue on merits? ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified or not?
Briefly stated the facts of the case are follows. The assessee is an individual, who does contract work. For the relevant assessment year, the return of income was filed on 27.09.2008 declaring total income of 12,06,350/-. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.12.2010 wherein the total income was determined at Rs. 1,11,83,118/-. Thereafter penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was imposed amounting to Rs. 34,00,000/-.
Aggrieved by the order of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason on the hearing dates, the assessee nor his authorized representative attended the hearing. The CIT(A) did not go into the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal in limine, applying the principle laid down by the order of the Delhi bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (P.) Ltd.
Page 3 of 5 5. Aggrieved by the order of the first appellate authority assessee has filed the present appeal before the tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted the hearing notices issued by the CIT(A) on two occasions were never received by the assessee nor his authorized representative and hence the case was unattended before the first appellate authority.
Further it was submitted that the assessee has filed additional ground and placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565, contented that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law, since the notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating the penalty proceedings.
The ld. DR present was duly heard.
We have heard rival submission and perusal material on record. The penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 34 Lakhs was imposed vide order dated 22.06.2011. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, on the date of hearing
before him. In the impugned order of the CIT(A) it is mentioned that hearing notices dated 16.11.2015 and 02.12.2015 were issued. It is the contention of the assessee that the hearing notices were not received and Page 4 of 5 therefore there was no representation before the CIT(A). There is nothing on record to suggest that the hearing notices dated 16.11.2015 and 02.12.2015 were served on the assessee. Therefore in the interest of justice and equity we are of the view that the matter needs reconsideration by the CIT(A) and accordingly we restore the same to the files of CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in the open court on this 08th day of March, 2017