SUKHBIR SINGH PRO SATGURU WOD WORKS,AMRITSAR vs. ICOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 ( 5 ), AMRITSAR

ORDER Per, Dr. M.L. Meena, A.M.:

The captioned appeal, by assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhiconfirming the penalty levied by the AO at Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals expartequa the assesseeby applying the judgement of Multiplan India Ltd without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the (Asr)/2021 assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeals on merit considering the judgement in quantum appeal and the documentary evidence on record after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. Further, the Ld. AR point out that quantum appeal is pending before the worthy CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case ex- parte without even waiting for the judgment of quantum appeal. The Ld. DR has not disputed the facts of the case, although she stands by the (Asr)/2021 impugned order.In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 272A without afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and appreciating the facts by passing a speaking order on merits. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the documentary evidence produced in the course of proceedings as per law. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceeding before the CIT(A).

Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.