2019 (8) TMI 1409 - AT - Income Tax

Ex-parte dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of loss, additions towards disallowances of certain payments u/s 40A(2)(b) and disallowances of cash payments u/s 40A(3) - HELD THAT - CIT(A) had dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non prosecution by the assessee, even though various notices were issued fixing the case for hearing as narrated by the CIT(A) in his appellate order - although, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte, but decided the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on merit by discussing the issue, in light of facts brought out by the AO. But, fact remains that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided appeal behind the back of the assessee, without hearing from the aggrieved party. No litigant would derive any benefit by not prosecuting its appeal filed before the appellate authorities, rather it would cause inconvenience to the aggrieved party, in case appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Therefore, when the party is not appear for hearing, there should be some compelling reasons, beyond the control of the assessee, which prevented from appearance before the authorities to explain the case. In this case, assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the AO, due to the reasons beyond its control - restore the appeal to file of the CIT(A) and direct him to decide the appeal on merits - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act without tax liability
2. Ex parte order without fair opportunity of hearing
3. Claim of expenditure not tantamount to inaccurate particulars
4. Initiation of penal proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) when similar grounds dropped in other sections
5. Confirmation of penalty without considering documentary and oral evidence

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act despite no tax liability for the relevant assessment year. The assessment determined a loss lower than declared by the assessee, leading to penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, citing the lack of explanation and evidence to support the transactions. The Tribunal noted the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) and directed a fresh hearing to afford the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the ex parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was due to reasons beyond its control, requesting a new hearing opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of procedural fairness and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Issue 3:
The appellant argued that the mere claim of expenditure, whether correct or not, should not lead to penalty under Section 271(l)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this argument but focused on procedural fairness, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

Issue 4:
The appellant raised the issue of initiating penal proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) while similar grounds under other sections were dropped. However, the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a new hearing did not directly address this specific issue but aimed at providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present its case.

Issue 5:
The appellant contested the confirmation of the penalty without considering contrary documentary and oral evidence. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order for a fresh hearing encompassed the need to review all evidence and submissions, ensuring a comprehensive consideration of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present its case before the appellate authority.