MAFATLAL DENIM LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 9(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2976/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 March 2016AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found a violation of the principle of natural justice due to the ex-parte order. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided ex-parte because notices were sent to the wrong address. The assessee had provided a new address to the CIT(A)'s office, but this was not used for sending notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice, and if so, whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) should be re-examined.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Ms. Z.A. Kachwala, Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy-DR
Hearing: 02/03/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/02/2013, of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the ground that an ex-parte order was passed by the ld. First Appellate Authority as the notices were sent at the wrong address by the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thus, there is violation of principle of natural justice and consequent upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Z.A. Kachwala, invited our attention to the letter dated 05/11/2012, addressed to the office of the ld. First Appellate Authority duly received by the office on 06/11/2012. This letter was not contradicted by the ld. DR, Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy.

1.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation, we find that the assessee challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, as is evident from the impugned order, nobody represented the assessee as the notices, sent to the assessee were returned back by the postal authorities with the remark “left”, thus, the appeal was decided ex-parte. It is noted that the assessee vide letter dated 05/11/2012 (photocopy filed by the assessee) furnished new address to the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is duly received on 06/11/2012 mentioning the address for correspondence along with telephone number. However, the notices were sent to the assessee at the old address. In view of this factual matrix and without going into the merits of the appeal, we remand this file to the file of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on merit afresh in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim. The assessee is also directed to approach the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one month from the receipt of this order and the ld. First Appellate Authority is free to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee on any mutually agreed date. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 02/03/2016.

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 →