WATERMARK FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6733/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that justice was not granted as the appeals were dismissed 'in limini' without any discussion on merits. Therefore, the appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders passed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders dismissing the appeals without considering them on merits, violating the principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without affording an opportunity of hearing and without adjudicating on merits, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271B,Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Amit Shukla, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Kambale (AR’s
For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran (DR)
Hearing: 31/05/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, for the Assessment Years 2007-

1.

2 Watermark financial consultants 08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 passed against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c),271B & 271C of the Act.

2.

During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Sudhir Kambale on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri A. Ramachandran, Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

In all these appeals, one common ground has been taken by the assesse with regard to lack of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice.

3.1. It is noted by us that Ld. CIT(A) had passed the order ex- parte. It is further noted by us that all these orders have been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of assessee ‘in limini’. It is noted that these appeals were not disposed on merits. No discussion at all has been made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the order. As per law, Ld. CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. It is further noted by us that in the penalty orders also proper representation does not appear to have been made by the assessee. Under these circumstances, we find that justice has not been granted in these cases. Thus, taking into account totality of all these facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to send all these appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for their adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee after properly serving the notice at the correct address of the assessee company. The assessee shall

3 Watermark financial consultants also extend requisite cooperation to Ld. CIT(A) by making proper representation of these cases. The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide these appeals on merits, objectively, after taking into account all the details and evidences and other submissions as may be filed by the assessee. Thus, with these directions, these appeals are sent back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be decided on merits after hearing the assessee.

4.

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May , 2016.

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 →