MAHAVEER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORTPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 493/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee obtained a loan from its director in cash, violating Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. A penalty of Rs. 24.10 Lacs was levied under Section 271D. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to the confirmation of the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 269SS,Section 271D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ 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. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29-12-2023 in the matter of penalty levied by Ld. AO u/s 271D for Rs.24.10 Lacs vide order dated 19-11-2019 on the allegation that the assessee obtained certain loan from its director in cash in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act.

2.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee failed to make any representation therein which Ld. Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the impugned penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The Ld. AR has prayed for another opportunity of hearing before first appellate authority which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.

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 appeal is restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material on record. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 6th May, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 06-05-2024 DS आदेशकीNितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 269SS

All 1,429 judgments and leading authorities on Section 269SS →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →