Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Samson Perinchery, Mumbai vs Assessee on 10 October, 2013
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण "E " यायपीठ मंब
ु ई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI
ी पी.एम. जगताप, लेखा सद य एवं ववेक वमा; या यक सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4632 /Mum/2013
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shri Samson बनाम/
बनाम Asstt. Commissioner of
Perinchery, Income Tax- Central
Vs.
Panchvati Building, Circle - 18 & 19,
91-E, Fansawadi, Aayakar Bhavan,
Ist Floor, S.P. Marg, M.K. Road,
Mumbai - 400 002. New Marine Lines,
Mumbai 20.
थायी ले खा सं . /PAN : ACWPP0166C
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &
Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal
Respondent by : Shri Girija Dayal
सनवाई
ु क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 10-10-2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 15-10-2013
आदे श / O R D E R
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. :
पी.एम. जगताप, लेखा सद य This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 39, Mumbai dated 14-02-2013 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 10,39,127/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271AAA of the income Tax Act, 1961.
2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271 AAA of the Act was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) by his impugned order passed ex parte for 2 ITA 4632/M/13 non-prosecution holding that the conduct of the assessee in seeking the adjustment again and again was sufficient to show that he was not interested in prosecuting this appeal. As submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the adjournments were sought by the assessee for sufficient cause and this position is clear from the fact that on the last date of hearing fixed before the ld. CIT(A) on 13-2-2013, the adjournment was sought on the ground that the wife of the authorized representative of the assessee had to undergo a surgery. Moreover, as submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, the assessee is very much interested in getting his appeal challenging the penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act to be disposed of on merit and has also shown his willingness to argue the matter on merit before us. The ld. D.R., however, has contended that the ld. CIT(A) having not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit, the matter may be remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee on merit. We agree with this contention of the ld. D.R. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal of the assessee involving the issue of imposition of penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act on merit after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend all the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on15th October, 2013.
.
आदे श क घोषणा खले
ु यायालय म दनांकः 15-10-2013 को क गई ।
Sd/- sd/-
(VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP)
या यक सद य JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मंुबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated 15-10-2013
3 ITA 4632/M/13
व. न.स./ RK , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)--39, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयु / CIT - Cenr. II, Mumbai
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai E Bench
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
ु / BY ORDER,
आदे शानसार
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
उप/ Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
धकरण, मंुबई / ITAT, Mumbai