SOUMYA SARIT CHOUDHARY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARRD -2(1), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 126/NAG/2020Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 October 2023AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK RIPOTE (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument as there was no proof of the assessee being properly served the last hearing notice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) were decided ex-parte by the CIT(A). The Revenue argued that the assessee was non-cooperative, leading to the ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) orders were validly passed ex-parte without proper service of notice on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK RIPOTE

Hearing: 20.09.2023Pronounced: 26.10.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2008-2009, arise against the CIT(A)-2, Nagpur’s as many lower appellate orders, both dated 31.01.2020 passed in case no.CIT(A)-2/338/2017-18-ITBA.No.10479 and in case no.CIT(A)-2/339/2017-18-ITBA.No.10482, in proceedings u/sec.271(1)(c.) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2 ITA.Nos.126 & 127/Nag./2020 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)'s twin orders under challenge before us affirming Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding quantum additions thereby imposing the consequential sec.271(1)(c) penalty(ies) respectively; have been passed ex-parte. The Revenue’s vehement argument during the course of hearing is that the assessee has been non-cooperative all along which had compelled the CIT(A) to take recourse to ex-parte adjudication.

3.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument once there is no material on record in the CIT(A)'s order that this assessee has been actually served the last corresponding notice(s) of hearing in both these appeals. We are mindful of the fact that the hearing in both these appeals had taken place after Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak followed by many lockdowns. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Delay(s) of 266 days each in both these appeals as instituted on 28.12.2020 stands condoned since covered under Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 as per hon’ble apex court’s

3 ITA.Nos.126 & 127/Nag./2020 directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, excluding the covid-19 pandemic outbreak period from for all intents and purposes under the limitation law.

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.10.2023.

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 →