M/S C.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 249/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 January 2024AY 2010-2011Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing a reasoned order. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals due to non-prosecution by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was valid without complying with Section 250(6) of the Act.

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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh K. Mangal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.01.2024Pronounced: 23.01.2024

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-orders dated 08.05.2023 and 11.05.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of penalty orders dated 24.02.2016 and 27.03.2018 passed by learned ITO-2(1) and DCIT-1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively u/s 271(1)(c) of C.I. BUILDERS Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal & 253/Ind/2023 - AY 2010-11 & 2012-13 the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed the captioned two appeals.

2.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in the present case, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed these twin-appeals of assessee, although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing fixed by CIT(A), but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal- orders passed by CIT(A) deserve to be set aside and the matters are fit for remand to the file of CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee prays to remand these matters to CIT(A) for an apt adjudication. Ld. DR would have no objection to the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his cases before CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Therefore and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his cases before CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

C.I. BUILDERS Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal & 253/Ind/2023 - AY 2010-11 & 2012-13

3.

Resultantly, both of these appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 23.01.2024.

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 →