SUKHBIR SINGH PRO SATGURU WOD WORKS, AMRITSAR V. ICOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 ( 5 ) , AMRITSAR

ITA 93/ASR/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8504 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 272A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 93/(Asr)/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sukhbir Singh Prop. M/s Satguru Wood Works, Adda Raja Sansi, Amritsar PAN – AWTPS4845C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Amritsar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, DR Date of Hearing: 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2022 ORDER Per, Dr. M.L. Meena, A.M.: The captioned appeal, by assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A),National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhiconfirming the penalty levied by the AO at Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A of the IT Act, 1961. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals expartequa the assesseeby applying the judgement of Multiplan India Ltd without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 2 ITA No. 93/(Asr)/2021 assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the appeals on merit considering the judgement in quantum appeal and the documentary evidence on record after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order of the CIT(A). 4. Having carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) and perusal of record, we find that the CIT(A) has rejected the appeal without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. AR contended that he has decided the appeal by applying the judgement of Multiplan India Ltd and confirmed the penalty order in violation of principles of natural justice. He contended that such an orderof levying the penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272A of the IT Act, 1961 being confirmed by the worthy CIT(A) without appreciation of facts and granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in violation of principles of natural justice is bad in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be cancelled. 5. Further, the Ld. AR point out that quantum appeal is pending before the worthy CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case ex- parte without even waiting for the judgment of quantum appeal. The Ld. DR has not disputed the facts of the case, although she stands by the 3 ITA No. 93/(Asr)/2021 impugned order.In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 272A without afforded proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and appreciating the facts by passing a speaking order on merits. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file with the direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merit after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the documentary evidence produced in the course of proceedings as per law. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceeding before the CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (DR. M.L. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date: 21.02.2022 DOC* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order