EAST COAST CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1460/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex parte orders without hearing the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication along with or after the quantum assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalties levied under Sections 271A and 271B were confirmed by the CIT(A) ex parte. The assessee argued that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was pending and the penalty appeals should not have been decided without it.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty appeals can be decided ex parte without hearing the assessee, especially when the related quantum assessment is pending. Violation of natural justice by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 271B,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 01.05.2024Pronounced: 10.05.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These two appeals preferred by the assessee company are against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 (hereinafter ‘Ld.CIT(A)’), Chennai, dated 19.10.2023 & 30.10.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter ‘AY’) 2012-13, wherein, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO levying penalty u/s.271A & 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). & 1461/Chny/2023 for AY 2012-13 M/s.East Coast Consultants (India) Ltd. :: 2 ::

2.

At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271A of the Act, for not maintaining the books of accounts and penalty was also levied u/s.271B of the Act, for failure to audit the accounts u/s.44AB of the Act.

1.

According to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte orders in both the cases without hearing the assessee. Further, according to the Ld.AR the quantum appeal for AY 2012-13 is still pending before the Ld.CIT(A) and he has called for Remand Report from the AO; and therefore, according to the Ld.AR, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have decided the ibid penalty appeals without passing the order in quantum assessment, because, the result/out-come of the quantum assessment would have its effect on these penalty appeals and therefore, he pleaded that the impugned ex-parte orders may be set aside back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with direction to be disposed off along with the quantum assessment or after its verdict.

3.

The Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and does not want to us to give another innings for the assessee.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that both the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte qua assessee whereby the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271A & 271B of the Act for AY & 1461/Chny/2023 for AY 2012-13 M/s.East Coast Consultants (India) Ltd. :: 3 ::

2012-13. The only grievance of the assessee is that since the quantum assessment for the relevant assessment year is pending before the Ld.CIT(A), these penalty appeals may also be adjudicated after the verdict is given in the quantum assessment for AY 2012-13 or along with that. Be that as it may, since, the assessee has not been heard by the Ld.CIT(A) while confirming the penalty levied u/s.271A & B of the Act, there is a per se violation of natural justice and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore these appeals back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate these two appeals along with quantum assessment for AY 2012-13 or thereafter. And the Ld.CIT(A) to give opportunity of hearing to assessee before disposing off the appeals in accordance with law.

5.

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

Order pronounced on the 10th day of May, 2024, in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →