ALOK BHARARA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6630/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 December 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and restored to his file for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The assessee had requested an adjournment, which was granted once, but no one appeared on the subsequent hearing date.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not granting a final opportunity of being heard and passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Hearing: 21/12/2016Pronounced: 21/12/2016

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-33, Mumbai and arises out of order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).

2.

The ground of appeal filed by the assessee reads as under:-

“ The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XXXIII, Mumbai CIT(A) erred in not granting final opportunity of being heard. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XXXIII, Mumbai CIT(A) erred in issuing standard notices and passing the order ex-parte without giving the appellant a chance to file a written submission. Further the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XXXIII, Mumbai CIT(A) erred in accepting the Learned Assessing Officer’s stand when prima facie, it was fairy evident, that the penalty levied by the Learned Assessing Officer was mechanical without considering the ‘mens rea’ of the appellant.”

3.

We have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the learned CIT(A) issued a notice on 18.02.2014 fixing the case for hearing on 27.02.2014. In response to it, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) adjourned the case for hearing to 20.03.2014. The learned CIT(A) has mentioned that nobody appeared on the above date. After that, he passed the appellate order on 30.09.2014 confirming the penalty of Rs. 6,33,270/- imposed by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

We find that no reasonable opportunity has been given by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee to represent his case. The opportunity given by the learned CIT(A) has been narrated by us at para 3 here- in-above. As it is a case of penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) and the assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard, we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and restore it to his file to pass an order as per the provisions of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21/12/2016

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 →