9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Shaji P Jacob, Addl. CIT ORDER PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in ITA No. 188/CIT(A)- 5/2016-17 dated 16.10.2017 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. There was a search and seizure operation in the premises of Shri R. Rangarajan, Chairman of M/s. Vel Tech Group of Educational Institutions and his family members, in which Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, the assessee, the daughter of Shri R. Rangarajan was also covered. Before the search and seizure operation, the assessee filed her return u/s. 139 admitting a total income of ₹ 33,91,800/- on 17.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. 4. Against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal with the following grounds: "1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer to reinstating the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) 2. The CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant's representative was busy in connection with the tax audit matters and hence he could not appear for the hearing. 4. The CIT(A) misinterpreted the order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 986/2013 in assessee's own case and illogically confirmed the levy of penalty u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a hearing in May 2017. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 22.05.2017 and the assessee sought for a hearing in June 2017. When the case was posted for hearing on 16.06.2017 none appeared nor any adjournment letter filed. Further, the case was posted for hearing on 24.07.2017, none appeared nor any adjournment letter filed. The case was again posted for hearing on 23.08.2017. An adjournment letter asking for a hearing in Oct 2017 was filed. When the case was posted for hearing for 04.10.2017, none appeared and hence the CIT(A) has passed the impugned order appreciating the facts. In view of that, the DR pleaded that the order of the CIT(A) may be confirmed. 6. We heard the rival contentions. Considering the fact that the order appealed is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
