THIRDWAVE MERCANTILE CO P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5649/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to contest their case properly.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to appear. The assessee contended that they could not appear before the CIT(A) for bona fide reasons and sought another opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

The captioned appeal by Assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2012-13 assails the ex-parte order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Thirdwave Mercantile Co.Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year 2012-13 (Appeals)-6 [CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 29/07/2016 qua confirmation to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.1,83,482/-.

2.

Facts leading to the same are that the assessee being resident corporate assessee was assessed for impugned AY u/s 143(3) on 25/03/2015 where the assessee suffered certain addition u/s 69C for Rs.5,56,005/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated in the quantum assessment and the assessee has been saddled with impugned penalty vide penalty order dated 30/09/2015. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) where assessee failed to make any representation which resulted into the issue being decided ex-parte qua the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Counsel for assessee [AR], at the outset, raised the issue of principal of natural justice by contending that the order of the first appellate authority was an ex-parte order since the assessee, for bona fide reasons, could not contest the same before Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, another opportunity be provided to the assessee. Ld. DR opposed the same on the ground that adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee and therefore, the assessee, at this stage, is debarred from taking this plea. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record. It is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the effected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the Thirdwave Mercantile Co.Pvt.Ltd Assessment Year 2012-13 matter back to Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. 6. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes on legal grounds. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th October, 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 →