PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), MANDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 368/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was rejected ex-parte by the CIT(A) without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The assessee claimed they did not receive any notice for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Inder Mohan Chhabra, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 27.06.2024Pronounced: 01.07.2024

आदेश/ORDER

PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified and unethical the appeal of the Appellant, through the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not observing that applicant was not properly served and ex-parte order was passed

ITA 368/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 2 3. That the penalty order of Ld. Income Tax Officer TDS Mandi is unjustified and against the law 4. That Ld. Income Tax Officer(TDS) is unjustified in imposing penalty under section 201 (1) and 201 (1 A)of Rs. 227931 /- with interest. 5. That the order of ld AO is illegal and same may kindly be quashed.”

4.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has summarily rejected the application of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to present its case. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the assessee has no knowledge about the hearing of appeal as no notice was received by the assessee through email or any other mode. It has been requested that the assessee may be given proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to present its case.

5.

The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual position.

6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be provided a reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the file is ITA 368/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 3 restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).

7.

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

Order pronounced on 01.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 201(1)

All 3,835 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →