VIJAYKUMAR SHREEVISHNU TOSHNIWAL,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 314/NAG/2024Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 December 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the belated appeal, in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves one opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay in filing. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and violating principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. Dewani
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 03/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.

Captioned appeal by the assessee against the impugned order dated 21/03/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17.

2.

In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–

“1. The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s 250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay even though sufficient cause for delay was placed on record. 3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay considering facts and evidence on record and adjudicated the appeal on merits.

2 Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal ITA no.314/Nag./2024 4.3 The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. No video conferencing is allowed even though specific request was made in written submission uploaded on 20/01/2024.

5.

The order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.18,29,040/-is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.

6. The learned A.O. erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs. 18,29,040/- without there being any concealment of income at the hands of assessee.

7.

The levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.18,29,040/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

8.

The show cause notice issued without specifying the limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be imposed is bad in law and consequent penalty levied thereupon is liable to be cancelled.

9.

Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”

3.

When this appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal before him. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues raised on merit and in accordance with law and to enable the assessee to substantiate its case.

4.

The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below.

5. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the assessee has not furnished Affidavit explaining the delay before the learned CIT(A) and resultantly the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the 3 Vijaykumar Shreevishnu Toshniwal ITA no.314/Nag./2024 belated appeal filed by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and also by following the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee deserves one opportunity to establish its case before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the entire matter to his file for denovo adjudication on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to file Affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by adducing proper evidence. Needless to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before adjudication of issues on merit.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2024

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 →