9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng are hereby allowed and Bench is proceeded to hear the appeals by today itself. 2. The appellant, M/s. Azad Coach Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') by filing the present appeals, sought to set aside the impugned orders all dated 29.12.2017 passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Noida qua the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 on the grounds inter alia that :- "ITA NO.2232/DEL/2017 1. That the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter refer to Ld. CIT (A)] dated 29.12.2017 is bad in law and on facts. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be set aside as the assessee was not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is bad in law and not justified because Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal simply on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant without appreciating the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), where it has been held that law does not empower Ld. CIT (A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act is perverse to the provisions of the law and to the facts of the case, because of not following the provision of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. 5. That the Ld AO has erred in disallowance of Rs. 8,64,371, the various expenses on account of personal use by the assessee company." 3. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in Assessment Year 2013-14 (ITA No.2233/Del/2018), penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs. 29,68,500/- for assessment year 2013-14 for furnishing inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee or the notices were received back unserved. It appears that the ld. CIT (A) has proceeded to decide the appeals without getting the notices served on the assessee which amounts to denial of adequate opportunity of being heard.
So, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee is entitled to be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard, hence impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT (A) are set aside and remanded back to the ld. CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being hard to the assessee.
Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on this 25th day of February, 2019. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
