SH. ROHIT KAPOOR,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 148/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 August 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not passed on merits and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed the CIT(A)'s order upholding a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 03.05.2018

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 19.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-2,

Chandigarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’].

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has agitated the action of the

CIT(A) in upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing officer u/s

271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our

attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the

ITA No. 148/Chd/2018- Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Mohali 2

order of the CIT(A) confirming the impugned penalty is an ex-parte

order. He has further submitted that no proper opportunity has been

granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee to present his case. It has been

further submitted that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

only on the first day of the hearing itself. That the alleged notice

was issued on 7.12.2017 fixing hearing of appeal for 19.12.2017

which was not received by the assessee before the date of hearing.

Further, that the order of the CIT(A) even otherwise has not passed

the order on merits but the penalty has been confirmed just because

of non-appearance of the assessee on the fixed date. The Ld.

Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the impugned order of the

CIT(A) be set aside and the assessee be given opportunity to present

his case before the CIT(A) properly.

4.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has supported the order of the

CIT(A).

5.

After considering the rival submissions and also considering

the fact that the impugned order of the CIT(A) has not been passed

on merits, in our view, it will be just and reasonable, if the assessee

is given an opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A). The

impugned order of the CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside and the matter

is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to

say that CIT(A) will provide proper opportunity to the assessee to

present himself or through his counsel on the date of hearing and the

assessee will cooperate and will not contribute to any unnecessary

adjournment of the case.

ITA No. 148/Chd/2018- Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Mohali 3

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02.08.2018

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 02. 08. 2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR

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 →