9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1078 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271AAB - ex-parte orer passed by CIT-A - no compliances on the part of assessee as none appeared on behalf of the assessee before ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing fixed by ld. CIT(A) - assessee is now claiming that these notices were not received by him - HELD THAT - The appellate order in the instant case was passed by ld. CIT(A) ex-parte in limine without discussing the issues on merits, which makes this order unsustainable in the eyes of law. The assessee is equally responsible for its woes as the assessee has to be vigilant after filing its appeal. We have observed that the assessee filed its appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 20.11.2017, while the first notice was issued by ld. CIT(A) almost on 27.07.2018. Thus, the assessee is equally responsible for its woes.Both the parties have now fairly stated during the course of hearing before the Division Bench , that based on facts and circumstances of the case the matter can go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) on merits in accordance with law. Thus we are inclined to set aside the appellate order dated 23.10.2018 passed by ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of all the issued raised by assessee in its appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law - Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Challenge to appellate order dismissing appeal in limine without discussing merits, adequacy of opportunity of being heard, request for fresh adjudication on merits. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the ITAT Varanasi was filed against an appellate order dated 23.10.2018, which upheld a penalty of ?15,00,000 imposed on the assessee under section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not appear despite being granted two hearing opportunities. 2. The assessee challenged the appellate order, claiming inadequate opportunity to be heard as only two hearing notices were issued, and the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order discussing the penalty issue on merits. The assessee requested the matter to be remanded for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for hearing and a reasoned order. 3. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without discussing the merits raised by the assessee in the appeal, which is contrary to the requirement under Section 250(6) of the Act. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the ITAT set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide proper opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order on all issues raised by the assessee, and consider the evidence and explanations submitted by the assessee in accordance with the law. 5. The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and proper adjudication on merits. The order was pronounced in the presence of both parties, and the appeal was allowed for the assessment year 2013-14. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by the parties, and the decision of the ITAT Varanasi to remand the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.
|
