2018 (9) TMI 279 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non serving of the notices for hearing issued by learned CIT(A) , his shifting of place after affixing new address at the address stated in form no 35, the breach of principle of natural justice - Held that - CIT(A) had infact decided the appeal exparte in the absence of assessee mainly on the grounds of his non appearances and disbelieving the contention that the assessee voluntarily filed revised computation of income before the AO post issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) by the AO during scrutiny proceedings - set aside and restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all the issues arising in this appeal on merits in accordance with law. Therefore, the appellate order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and all the issues restored to file of the learned CIT(A) to decide all issues afresh on merits in accordance with law - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without adequate opportunity of being heard.
3. Allegations of breach of principles of natural justice by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Discrepancy regarding the shifting of premises by the assessee.
5. Dismissal of appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without considering grounds of appeal and statement of facts.
6. Delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer after the assessee revised its income during assessment proceedings due to alleged misappropriation by the accountant. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in an ex-parte order, leading the assessee to appeal before the tribunal.

2. The assessee raised concerns about the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing adequate opportunity for a hearing. The tribunal considered the delay in filing the appeal and decided to admit it for adjudication on merits, citing the need for substantial justice over technicalities.

3. The assessee alleged a breach of natural justice by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the ex-parte nature of the appellate order. The tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on all issues, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

4. There was a discrepancy regarding the shifting of premises by the assessee, with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluding that the assessee left the premises without informing the new address. The tribunal found it necessary to re-examine this issue and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide on all issues afresh based on merits and in accordance with the law.

5. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without considering the grounds of appeal and statement of facts submitted by the assessee. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of all issues raised by the assessee.

6. The delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal was considered, and the tribunal decided to admit the appeal for adjudication, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice and ensuring that the assessee's case is heard on its merits.