9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as to why the order imposing penalty be not made under section 271(1)(c) of the Act gives less than 24 hours to the petitioner, whereby it had asked the petitioner to appear in person or through a duly authorised representative. This shorter period of less than 24 hours can be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice. It appears that on 28.11.2022, request was made for adjournment and the same is also reflected from the portal of the Tribunal and that such a request had been made to adjourn the hearing by few days. Without paying any heed to the same, when the order impugned has been passed, the Court requires to interfere. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of penalty dated 30.11.2022 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hurkar and had offered to tax for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2.2 The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,44,46,334/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution and finalized assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by passing order on 18.03.2013. 2.3 Aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The petitioner company had contended that it had taken the said investment in its books, as the investment was made in the name and style of M/s. Checkmate Apparels, a proprietorship concern of Mrs. Sharmila Mahurkar. CIT(Appeals) partly allowing the appeal on 02.05.2014. 3 The challenge was made before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( the Tribunal for short), which also confirmed the addition on 30. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the Petitioner; d. Any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; e. To provide for the cost of this petition. 4 Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent is filed denying all allegations. The sole ground of challenge, according to the respondent, is the violation of principles of natural justice. The penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued on 18.03.2013 and subsequently further notice on 28.11.2022 under section 274 of the Act read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioner to respond by 11:00 a.m. on 29.11.2022. It is the say of the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) of the Act gives less than 24 hours to the petitioner, whereby it had asked the petitioner to appear in person or through a duly authorised representative. This shorter period of less than 24 hours can be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice. It appears that on 28.11.2022, request was made for adjournment and the same is also reflected from the portal of the Tribunal and that such a request had been made to adjourn the hearing by few days. Without paying any heed to the same, when the order impugned has been passed, the Court requires to interfere. 8 Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of penalty dated 30.11.2022 is quashed and set aside. Let an opportunity of hearing be given from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
