9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinciples of natural justice, despite the Appellant having placed on record the fact of an untimely demise of the Chairman Managing Director of the Appellant Company; 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT (A) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed on the Appellant under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that it is a settled law that mere claim of expenditure in law, incorrect or otherwise, cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars in the manner contemplated in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act; 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the penal pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of material available on record, levied penalty of ₹ 13,94,989/- under Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The assessee carried the mater in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) had given six dates of hearing to the assesee, as mentioned in his appellate order at para 2.2, for which, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and upheld penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961, on the ground that the facts of the case clearly indicates that the assessee had no explanation to offer for some of the expenditure and also was not in a position to substantiate the claim with material evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld.CIT(A) in his appellate order at Para 2.2 on pages 2. We further noted that 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. Further, 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
