MSEB ENNGINEERS CONSUMER CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1373/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 February 2024AY 2014-15Bench: HON’BLE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and remanded the matter back to the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to ignore the withdrawal communication and adjudicate the issue de novo, providing three effective hearings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC based on an online withdrawal request. The assessee claims this withdrawal was a misunderstanding and they intended to appeal the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal based on a withdrawal request that the assessee claims was a misunderstanding. The core issue is the validity of the dismissal and the need for a de novo adjudication on merits.

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, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’]
Pronounced: 15/02/2024

द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee by : Mr Sharad Vaze [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 15/02/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal of the assessee is filed against the first appellate DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056880486(1) dt. 19/10/2023 anent to assessment year 2014-15 [for short ‘AY’] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short ‘NFAC’] passed u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] which in turn arisen out of order of penalty dt. 17/01/2018 imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Sangli [for short ‘AO’]

2.

Without touching the merits of the case, at the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR Mr Vaze adverting to para no. 4 of the impugned order placed at internal page 3/3, contended that, the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss the appeal on the basis of online ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 2

DCIT Vs CTR Manufacturing Industries Pvt Ltd., withdrawal request of the assessee. It submitted that, against the quantum addition assessee went into appeal which the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dt. 17/08/2017 partly allowed in favour of the assessee. This order was misconceived by the appellant and uploaded the same against pending appeal challenged the impugned levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was no intention to misguide the Ld. NFAC and the erroneous communication stemmed out of pure misunderstanding under bonafied belief not intended otherwise. It is also averred that, since the Ld. NFAC yet to adjudicate the issue on merits, Ld. AR regretting the event, has strongly prayed for remand with an appropriate directions. Solidifying the facts the Ld. DR did not object the prayer for remanding the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC for de-nova adjudication.

3.

Heard both the parties and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 perused the record. Finding the factual position, we accept the prayer and remand the issue back to Ld. NFAC with a direction to ignore the withdrawal communication and adjudicate the issue de-nova according three effective hearings to the appellant.

4.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday, 15th day of February, 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 →