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

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 ::

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.

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

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