M/S. ANIL DYECHEM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT., (OSD) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2675/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 November 2017AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the grounds of appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed of ex-parte without granting an adjournment. The assessee contended that this was due to a lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly confirmed.

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, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.R
For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 15.11.2017Pronounced: 16.11.2017

ITA No.2675/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2675/Ahd/2014 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Anil Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd., vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax C/o. 808, Shilp Building, (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. [PAN: AABCA 7881 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M.K. Patel, A.R. Respondent by : Shri T. Shankar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 15.11.2017 Date of pronouncement : 16.11.2017 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad dated 07.08.2014 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That on facts and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in not granting reasonable opportunity of being heard and disposing the appeal ex-parte. 2. That on facts and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have granted adjournment as prayed for, and in interest of justice, ought to have decided the appeal after hearing the assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.9,37,053/-. 4. That on facts and in law, the entire penalty ought to have been deleted as prayed for, as there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.”

ITA No.2675/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page 2 of 2 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the request for adjournment. Therefore, he submitted that there was reasonable cause for not attending the hearing. He submitted that an opportunity be given to the assessee for representing the case.

4.

Ld. Departmental Representative opposed this submission of the learned counsel for the assessee and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in para 4 has recorded that sufficient opportunity was given.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. After considering totality of the facts and submissions of the assessee, we deem it proper in the interest of justice to restore the grounds of appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh. Impugned order is set aside. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 16th day of November, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- Manish Borad Kul Bharat (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Ahmedabad, the 16th day of November, 2017 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

By order COPY

Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

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 →