KADVA PATIDAR BETALIS SAMAJ MANAV SEVA SAMITI TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1132/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 March 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the ex-parte appellate order, directing the CIT(A) to dispose of the penalty appeal along with the pending quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was also given liberty to decide on the appeal fee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of the full appeal fee. The assessee claimed the quantum appeal was pending and provided evidence of its filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying the pendency of the quantum appeal and without affording natural justice. The issue of deficit appeal fee was also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 249(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Assessment Year 2012-13 Kadva Patidar Betalis The ITO (Exemption), Samaj Manav Seva Ward-1, Ahmedabad Samiti Trust Vs 2, Praful Society, Opp. Sardar Patel Stadium, (Respondent) Ahmedabad-380009 PAN: AAATK2109C (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri S U Mashruwala, C.A. Revenue Represented: shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 27-02-2024 Date of pronouncement : 06-03-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 02-11-2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13.

Page No 2 Kadva Padidar Betalis Samaj Manav Seva Samiti Trust vs. ITO (E)

2.

The impugned appellate order reads as follows: “The assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized on 23.12.2019 manually. Appeal against the quantum order is not reflected in the pendency probably as it was not filed electronically or it would have been disposed off. On perusal of the appeal records, it is observed that the appellant has not deposited requisite appeal fee ie. Rs. 1,000/- in the present appeal. It is observed that the appellant has deposited appeal fee at Rs 250/-only. Therefore, appeal is not admitted.”

2.1. Though the Ld. CIT(A) held that the quantum order reflected in the pendency probably as it was not filed electronically or it would have been disposed off. Whereas it is seen from Serial No. 4 of Statutory Appeal Form No. 35 before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has clearly stated as follows: Pending Appeal: 4. Whether an appeal in relation to any other assessment year/ Yes financial year is pending in the case of the appellant with any commissioner (Appeals) Sr. Income-tax Commissioner Appeal Date of Assessment Section Date of No. Authority with whom Number Filing of year/financial and Sub- Such passing the the appeal is appeal year in section of Order order pending connection the appealed with which Income- against the appeal tax Act, has been 1961, preferred under which the order appealed against has been passed 1 ITO Ward CIT(A)-9 1 13-Jan- 2012-13 143(3) 23-Dec- (Exemption) 2020 2019 AHM

3.

However Ld. CIT(A) without verifying the pendency of the quantum appeal and also not giving any opportunity to the assessee for the so called deficit fee paid by the assessee dismissed the appeal which is not in accordance with law and Principle of Natural Justice. Further Ld. Counsel also produced before us, the Income Tax portal screenshot that the quantum appeal filed on Page No 3 Kadva Padidar Betalis Samaj Manav Seva Samiti Trust vs. ITO (E)

13.01.2020 before Ld. CIT(A) for the Asst. Year 2012-13 is pending before the Appellate Forum.

4.

Therefore taking note of the pendency of the quantum appeal and in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the exparte appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC with a direction to dispose of the penalty appeal along with the quantum appeal pending before Ld. CIT(A)-9 or before NAFC, Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is also given liberty to rise the appeal fees paid by the assessee is within the provisions of Section 249(1) of the Act.

5.

In the result, the appeal field by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

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 →