9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in confirming the penalty imposed on the Appellant under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that no tax was payable by the Appellant for the A.Y. 2009-10 relevant to PY 2008-09 inasmuch as the assessment was completed u/s, 143(3) of the Act by determining a loss of Rs. 1,24,78,505/- as against the loss of Rs,l,71,28,808/-declared by the Appellant {by virtue of Assessment Order dated 28.12.2011 issued by the Respondent herein}; 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C1T (A) has erred in passing the impugned order ex parte without affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the Appellant herein, in breach of the principles of natural justice, despite the Appellant having place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove grounds and/or add a new ground, as may be deemed fit and necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961, determining the total loss at Rs. 1,24,78,505/-, as against, the loss declared at Rs. 1,71,28,808/- by making additions towards disallowances of certain payments u/s 40A(2)(b) and disallowances of cash payments u/s 40A(3) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Thereafter, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated and after considering relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of material available on record, levied penalty of Rs. 13,94,989/- under Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961. The assessee carried the mater in appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner, which is evident from the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) had given six opportunities of hearing to the assessee, for which no compliance has been filed. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) had rightly dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and his order should be upheld. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused material available on record. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non prosecution by the assessee, even though various notices were issued fixing the case for hearing as narrated by the Ld.CIT(A) in his appellate order at Para 2.2 on pages 2. We further noted that although, the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte, but decided the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
