SRI DIPANKAR JANA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-27(1), HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 653/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 December 2017AY 2005-20063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte due to non-appearance. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed on additions made for labor and staff welfare expenses, which were treated as bogus.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A) and if the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) requires reconsideration.

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 S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, & Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM:

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 7, Kolkata dt.02-12-2015 for the A.Y 2005-06, wherein he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 70,904/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO.

2.

It is noticed that at the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor any representing the assessee and not filed any application seeking adjournment. The ld.DR submits that for non appearance of the assessee before the CIT-A, the CIT-A dismissed the appeal of assessee by ex parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear the ld.DR and dispose of the appeal on merits and perusing material on record.

3.

It is further noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 58 days. For which the assessee filed condonation petition by way of an affidavit, which is on record. Considering the contents therein and hearing the ld.DR, we condone the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We find that the penalty u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act initiated in respect of addition made on account of labour and staff welfare to an extent of Rs.2,31,708/-, where the expenses claimed towards tour of 1 staff are treated by the AO as bogus and for non compliance before the AO in the penalty of Rs. 70,904/- u/s. 271(1)(c ) of the Act was imposed. We further find that the assessee did not get adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT-A in the first appellate proceedings. It is also noticed that the CIT-A issued notices intimating the date of hearings on 9-1-2014, 19-8-2014, 16-9-2014, 30-10-2014, 31-12-2014 and 19-06-2015. It appears from record that in all the said dates, none attended on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the CIT-A dismissed the appeal by ex parte for non appearance and non prosecution of the assessee. Before us also, we find that none appeared on behalf of assessee. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld. DR and in the interest of justice we remand the issue to the file of the CIT-A to decide the same afresh and to pass a fresh order as per law. The assessee is also directed not to take any adjournment before the CIT-A and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. The assessee shall be at liberty to file evidences, if any, to substantiate his case.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-12-2017

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 →