SHREENATH CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2) OLD WARD-2(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1651/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 November 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee an opportunity of hearing before dismissing the appeal for delay. The penalty appeal should also be decided after the quantum proceedings are finalized.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) against a penalty order was dismissed as non-maintainable due to a delay of one year and eight months. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay without providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable without granting an opportunity of hearing. Whether the penalty appeal should be decided along with the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR, Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Hearing: 05/11/2024Pronounced: 08/11/2024

Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shreenath Corporation Vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) C/o. MS Chhajed & Co., CA Ahmedabad. “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statute Ahmedabad 380 014. PAN : ACFFS 4232 D Assessee by : Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR Revenue by सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05/11/2024 घोषणा क� तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 6.8.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ,dismissing assessee’s appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ,as non-maintainable.

3.

The ld.CIT(A), we find has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable by not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal before it. The delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is noted to be to the tune of one year and eight months. The ld.CIT(A) has found no sufficient cause adduced by the assessee for the delay, and

4.

We have noted from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not been given any opportunity of hearing by the ld.CIT(A) while not condoning the delay. The Ld.CIT(A) has considered merely the submissions filed by the assessee ,along with the appeal, giving reasons for the delay and passedorder refusing to condone the delay. Besides, the ld.counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the fact that the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceedings is still pending before the ld.CIT(A) and the penalty appeal has been decided in advance.

5.

Noting the above, we are of the view that the appeal of the assessee needs to be considered afresh by the ld.CIT(A) more particularly, along with the appeal in quantum proceedings before it; that it would be appropriate to decide the penalty appeal only after the quantum proceeding is decided and to consider condonation of delay only after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

We accordingly restore the issue back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to be decided in accordance with law, as per our above directions.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 8th November, 2024 at 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 →