ASHADEEP INDUSTRIES,PATAN vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 779/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 November 2024AY 2008-09Bench: DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the adjournment application, leading to a denial of natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought an adjournment from the CIT(A) due to a short notice period for a hearing. However, the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an order without considering the assessee's adjournment application.

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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR.BRR KUMARMS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.R
For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 22.11.2024

O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 20.02.2024 passed for the Assessment Years (2007-08 to 2009-10). Since the issue involved in all the three appeal are common we extract the grounds of appeal raised in for AY 2007-08.

2.

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act without considering merits of the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the record before him and in particular the submissions reproduced in the order imposing penalty passed by the AO and also in the impugned appellate order.

-780/Ahd/2024 Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2009-10 - 2–

1.

2. CIT (A) has also incorrectly mentioned that the notice of hearing dt.08-02-2024 was not complied with. As a matter of fact the notice was issued after three years and which reached the AR the next day. being Friday and compliance was due on Monday. 12-02-2024. Since time for compliance was too short, application for adjournment was uploaded on 12-02-2024 seeking time up to 27-02-2024. The CIT (A), without informing the appellant the fate of his application proceeded to pass the appellate order.

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have cancelled the order u/s. 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.9,15,100/- passed by the AO.

4. It is therefore prayed that the orders of the lower authorities imposing and confirming the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act may be cancelled.

3. The pertinent facts required for adjudication of the case are that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notice of hearing on 08.02.2024 to comply by 12.02.2024. Due to paucity of time for compliance the assessee sought adjournment of the hearing to 27.02.2024. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 20.02.2024 without considering the adjournment application of the assessee. It was argued that it is a case of denial of justice and opportunity of being heard and violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld.Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance will be made before the Ld.CIT(A). The ld. DR fairly accepted the proposal. We find that no prejudice will be cause to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee to file their submission. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass the order afresh after due issue of notice to the assessee. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

-780/Ahd/2024 Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2009-10 - 3–

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22.11.2024

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 22.11.2024 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

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 →