SRINIWAS AKKEPELLI GADIPELLI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG 3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 July 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed under Section 272A(2)(k) for failure to deliver TDS statements within the stipulated time. The proceedings before the lower authorities were conducted ex-parte without proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) was rightly imposed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(k)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Akkepelli
For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolwkar, Sr. AR
Hearing: 19.07.2016Pronounced: 19.07.2016

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration and they are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2009-2010 and 2010-11. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Adjudication of the appeals is given in the succeeding paras of this order.

2.

In these appeals, assessee challenged the different orders passed u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act, by the CIT-14, Mumbai commonly dated 7.10.2014 for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The said orders were passed by the Revenue Officers for the assessee’s failure to deliver the requisite statements within the time specified under the TDS provisions of the Act.

3.

Before us, assessee appeared in person and submitted that all the proceedings before the AO as well as the CIT (A) were conducted in the absence of the assessee and pleaded for granting an opportunity of being heard. He further

requested for remanding the issues to the file of the CIT (A) for facilitating him with proper representation and evidences. Assessee also promised to appear this time in person without fail and file the explanation giving the reason for delay in furnishing of the statements in time.

4.

On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Revenue Authroties.

5.

After hearing both the parties, we find, the impugned orders were passed ex- parte. The Assessing Officer orders do not indicate the granting of proper opportunity to the assessee. Further, it is noticed from the orders that the AO levied the penalty in the absence of any explanation or the reason for non-compliance of the provisions of section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the issues involved in both the appeals are required to be remanded to the file of the CIT (A). We order accordingly and direct the CIT (A) to adjudicate and decide the issue afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT (A) without fail. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2016. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 19.07.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)-

3 आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

5.

ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

All 249 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →