ARUNANSHU MONDAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 58(4)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2230/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 February 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed ex-parte by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) or provide any explanation or evidence to support their appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty ex-parte without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 21, Kolkata dt. 18-01-2016 for the A.Y 2009-10, wherein he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 4,20,248/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO by ex-parte.

2.

The only issue to be decided as to whether the CIT-A ex parte is justified in confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,20,248/- imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

At the time of hearing before us, it is noticed that neither any one appeared nor filed any adjournment petition on behalf of assessee inspite of service of notice issued by the registry. Therefore, after perusing the case record and hearing the ld.DR, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record.

4.

The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not appear before the CIT-A and also failed to give explanation in cancelling the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and for non explanation, the AO was justified in imposing the same, which was confirmed by the CIT-A by ex parte.

5.

On perusal of records, we find that neither the assessee nor any representative on behalf of the assessee appeared before the CIT-A to prosecute his case by rendering proper explanation. According to CIT-A, the assessee availed opportunities of being heard, but he failed to submit any evidence or explanation to substantiate his claim as made in the grounds of appeal. We find that before the CIT-A there was no representation or explanation on behalf of the assessee in cancelling the impugned penalty and in substantiating his claim by any evidence and explanation. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of natural justice one more opportunity should be given by the CIT-A to the assessee to substantiate his claim. In view of above, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter to the file of the CIT-A to decide the issue in hand afresh by giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee is also directed not to seek any adjournment. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences and explanation in support of his contention and claim.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02-02-2018

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 →