MUTHUSAMY,KOMARAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUCHENGODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2481/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial 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?

While noting the assessee's negligence, the tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant another opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee was aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty under Section 271B for Rs. 1.50 Lacs. The assessee had failed to provide any explanation during appellate proceedings, leading to the confirmation of the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case, despite previous negligence, in the interest of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1.50 Lacs vide impugned order dated 26-07-2024, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Upon perusal of the para 5.2 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee has failed to file any explanation during the course of appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the penalty was confirmed. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its case. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case.

3.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 3rd December, 2024. (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद# / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 03-12-2024 DS आदेशकीGितिलिपअ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु</CIT Salem. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडAफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →