ASHADEEP INDUSTRIES ,PATAN V. THE ITO, WARD-3, PATAN

ITA 780/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ashadeep Industries appealing against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. The primary contention was the procedural fairness in the appellate process, where the CIT(A) passed an order without considering the assessee's adjournment request due to insufficient time to comply with the notice. The tribunal found that this oversight constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice and remanded the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40795 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C DHARANI NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKER
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.778 to 780/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2009-10) Ashadeep Industries, 31, GIDC, Chanasma, Chanasma, Dist. Patan, Patan-384220 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Patan. [PAN No.AAKFA8566F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri K C Thaker, A.R. Respondent by: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2024 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 20.02.2024 passed for the Assessment Years (2007-08 to 2009-10). Since the issue involved in all the three appeal are common we extract the grounds of appeal raised in ITA No.778/Ahd/2024 for AY 2007-08. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act without considering merits of the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the record before him and in particular the submissions reproduced in the order imposing penalty passed by the AO and also in the impugned appellate order. ITA No. 778-780/Ahd/2024 Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2009-10 - 2– 2. CIT (A) has also incorrectly mentioned that the notice of hearing dt.08-02-2024 was not complied with. As a matter of fact the notice was issued after three years and which reached the AR the next day. being Friday and compliance was due on Monday. 12-02-2024. Since time for compliance was too short, application for adjournment was uploaded on 12-02-2024 seeking time up to 27-02-2024. The CIT (A), without informing the appellant the fate of his application proceeded to pass the appellate order. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have cancelled the order u/s. 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.9,15,100/- passed by the AO. 4. It is therefore prayed that the orders of the lower authorities imposing and confirming the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act may be cancelled. 3. The pertinent facts required for adjudication of the case are that the Ld.CIT(A) has issued notice of hearing on 08.02.2024 to comply by 12.02.2024. Due to paucity of time for compliance the assessee sought adjournment of the hearing to 27.02.2024. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 20.02.2024 without considering the adjournment application of the assessee. It was argued that it is a case of denial of justice and opportunity of being heard and violation of principles of natural justice. The Ld.Counsel prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance will be made before the Ld.CIT(A). The ld. DR fairly accepted the proposal. We find that no prejudice will be cause to the revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee to file their submission. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) to pass the order afresh after due issue of notice to the assessee. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments. ITA No. 778-780/Ahd/2024 Ashadeep Industries vs. ITO Asst.Years –2007-08 to 2009-10 - 3– 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22.11.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 22.11.2024 Manish, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "