CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI V. DY.CIT 2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 1791/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4479 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

ITA No. 1791/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member)] ITA No. 1791/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2016-17 Central Bank of India ...................... Appellant 4 th Floor, Chandermukhi Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN:AAACC2498P] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) Mumbai .................. Respondent Appearances by R.V. Chaniyari for the appellant Chetan Kacha for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : July 22, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : July 22, 2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal the assessee-appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 20.05.2022, passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Vide letter dated 12.07.2022, the assessee had sought an early hearing of this appeal and the early hearing petition so filed came up before us today. When it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, learned Departmental Representative fairly accepted that position. It is clearly on record that while the assessee-appellant was given time up to 27.05.2022 to file the reply, the impugned order was passed much before the deadline so given, on 20.05.2022. In view of this clear an uncontroverted position it was put to the parties as to why the matter not be remitted to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after giving a fair reasonable opportunity of giving to the assessee. Learned Representatives did not object to this suggestion on the bench and in fact did fairly accept that the matter is required ITA No. 1791/Mum/2022 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 2 of 2 to be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. In view of the above discussions as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to take up the appeal for hearing, at this stage itself, and remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on the 22 nd day of July 2022 Sd/- Sd/- Pavan Kumar Gadale Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 22 nd July, 2022 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar/ Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai