PRIYANKA MANOHAR RAO,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1654/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2016AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the penalty was levied. Therefore, the penalty was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals against the same CIT(A) order. The penalty under dispute was levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee contended that they were not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the issues?

Whether a reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee before levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b). Whether filing two appeals against the same order is maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

These two appeals by assessee are arising out of same order of CIT (A)-31, Mumbai in appeal No CIT (A)-31/IT-140/20(2)(3)/12-13 vide order dated 28.08.14. The assessment was framed by ITO ward 26 (2)-4, Mumbai for the assessment order 2010-11 vide order dated 08-03-13 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty under dispute was levied by ITO ward 20 (2) -3, Mumbai u/s 271 (1) (b) of the Act vide order dated 03-12-12.

2.

At the outset it is noticed that both these appeals were filed against the same order and hence only this one appeal can be filed by the assessee and not two appeals. Hence, the other appeal has to be treated as infractuous.

3.

I find from the case records that the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard while levying penalty u/s 271(1) (b) of the Act and only once notice was issued. In my view, it is not clear whether the same was served or not and accordingly, I restore this penalty back to the file of AO for afresh adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. This appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04-11-2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →