AVATHAN SINGARAVALLI,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 3(1), TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 905/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 July 2024AY 2016-17Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for an excess claim of interest. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) despite previous non-prosecution and failure to make representations.

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, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.17.63 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 08-02-2024 in the matter of penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on 26-06- 2019. It could be seen that the appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution as well as on merits. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

It emerges that the penalty has been levied for excess claim of interest amount of Rs.17.05 Lacs. Upon perusal of para 4.2 of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee failed to make any representation therein.

3.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity 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 forthwith. A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal on merits.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd July, 2024 (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER pचे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-07-2024 DS आदेशकीKितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुA/CIT Madurai. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडFफाईल/GF

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 →