Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH.
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 59, Mumbai dated 05/01/2015 which in turn arises out of an order dated 28/05/2012 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In this appeal the solitary grievance of the assessee is against the action of the CIT(A) in sustaining penalty under section 271C of the Act of Rs.50,587/- for non/short deduction of tax at source.
The Ld. Representative for the assessee at the outset submitted that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order after rejecting the adjournment application moved by the assessee’s representative, as it was not accompanied by a valid power of attorney. The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee would be satisfied if the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh on merits as per law after hearing the assessee.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has not opposed assessee’s plea for remanding the matter back to the file of CIT(A).
We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the approach of the assessee was casual and did not reflect any interest in prosecuting the appeal, as the adjournment application moved by the representative of the assessee was not accompanied by a valid power of attorney. Be that as it may, in our view, the manner in which the CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal is contrary to the legal position contained in section 250(6) of the Act . A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appeal has been dismissed merely noticing the absence of the assessee, without dealing the Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits. Section 250(6) of the Act obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The said approach is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order of CIT(A). On this ground itself, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is unsustainable. Be that as it may, we deem fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per law.