SANJAY MANGILAL JAIN,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 938/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 January 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the prior restoration of the quantum assessment with costs. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against orders of penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-response to notices. The assessee claimed that hearing notices were not served. The Tribunal had previously restored the quantum assessment to the AO, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalties confirmed by the CIT(A) were valid when the assessee claims non-receipt of notices and the quantum assessment is still pending.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri. Nischal B, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 04.01.2024Pronounced: 04.01.2024

Per George George K, Vice President:

1.

These appeals at the instance of the asessee are directed against two orders of CIT(A) dated 27.09.2023 and 28.09.2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The orders of the CIT(A) arise out of the orders of penalty passed under sections 271A and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after called ‘the Act’).

2.

At the very outset, we notice that orders of penalty passed under sections 271A and 271(1)(b) of the Act were confirmed by the CIT(A) since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued from the Office of the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

3.

The learned AR submitted that hearing notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) was never served on the assessee’s email or assessee could have missed the same since it could have settled in the assessee’s spam folder of the mail. The learned AR further submitted that as regards the quantum assessment, the Tribunal had restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. Learned AR has placed on record the order of the Tribunal in the quantum assessment for Assessment Year 2014-15 in (order dated 07.12.2023).

4.

The learned DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the claim of the assessee that he was never in receipt of the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). Be it as it may, we find that in the quantum assessment, the matter has been restored to the files of the AO subject to the condition that assessee pays the cost of Rs.10,000/-. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee has to be provided with one more opportunity to present his case. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the files of the AO since the quantum assessment is pending before him. Assessee shall co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →