AMUDHA RAGHOTHAMAN,ULLAGARAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1453/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 April 2024AY 2016-2017Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by passing an ex parte order without proper opportunity to the assessee. The order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) for AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) passed the order ex parte, stating the assessee did not respond to notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) followed the principles of natural justice and provided adequate opportunity to the assessee before passing an ex parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

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: 30.04.2024Pronounced: 30.04.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 11.10.2023 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter ‘AY’) 2016-17 against the penalty confirmed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). for AY 2016-17 Amudha Raghothaman :: 2 ::

2.

At the outset, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte, because, according to him, even though, four notices were sent, the assessee did not respond, which fact, the Ld.CIT(A) has noted at Para No.5 of his impugned order. The Ld.CIT(A) has merely confirmed the action of the AO, since no material was brought on record to assail the action of the AO levying penalty of Rs.3,15,000/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

First of all, we do not countenance the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A), since, it is per se violates natural justice qua assessee. As per the mandate of Sec.250(6) of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal is duty bound to state the reason for his decision which of course he should do after giving proper opportunity to assessee. Since, it is noted that there is no mention of service of notice and admittedly assessee was not heard before passing the impugned order and moreover, the grounds of appeal

has not been considered and disposed of as per Sec.250(6) of the Act, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to give proper opportunity to the assessee, and after hearing the assessee pass order in accordance with sub-section (6) of Sec.250 of the Act. The assessee is directed to be diligent and to file written for AY 2016

17. Amudha Raghothaman :: 3 :: submissions/documents to substantiate its contentions against the levy of penalty if advised to do so. The Ld.CIT(A) to pass reasoned order while disposing of the appeal of the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 30th day of April, 2024, in Chennai.

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 →