MERU IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2566/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 March 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it in limine. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit after proper notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a significant loss, but failed to furnish details requested by the Assessing Officer. The AO disallowed the loss and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. The need for the CIT(A) to decide the penalty appeal on its merits.

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, “B” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Ravish Sood (JM)

Hearing: 21.3.2017Pronounced: 21.3.2017

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21.2.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-26, confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent by registered post to the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

3.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of ` 3.34 crores. Since the assessee did not furnish details that were called for by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire amount of loss and determined total income at nil figure. Subsequently, the AO levied a penalty of ` 1.13 crores on the addition so made by him. The assessee challenged the penalty order by filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A).

2 Meru Impex Since the assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed in limine by the learned CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved with the order of Ld CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

5.

As stated earlier, the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, as the assessee did not appear before him. In our view, the learned CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merit. Hence, we are of the view that this appeal needs to be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with the direction to dispose of the appeal on merit after serving due notice to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to appear before Ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 21.3.2017.

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 →