Tribunal orders fresh adjudication for assessee company, emphasizes right to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee company, finding that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for the assessee to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal left open the consideration of other contentions regarding the penalty's sustainability for future review.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity of being heard and abeyance of penalty proceedings.
2. Misreporting and suppression of facts.
3. Validity of penalty order under section 270A.
4. Jurisdiction of CIT(A), NFAC.
5. Show cause notice issued on a public holiday.
6. Non-adjudication of specific grounds by CIT(A), NFAC.

Summary:

1. Opportunity of Being Heard and Abeyance of Penalty Proceedings:
The assessee contended that the Assistant Commissioner erred in passing the penalty order without providing an opportunity of being heard and without considering the request to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance.

2. Misreporting and Suppression of Facts:
The assessee argued that there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, and the penalty for misreporting was invoked without proper appreciation of the consistent position taken by the assessee, supported by judicial precedents.

3. Validity of Penalty Order Under Section 270A:
The impugned penalty order dated 31 March 2020, levying penalty under section 270A, was contested as bad in law and liable to be quashed.

4. Jurisdiction of CIT(A), NFAC:
The CIT(A), NFAC, was criticized for misinterpreting its jurisdiction and not adjudicating the grounds of appeal, despite the impugned order being covered under the list of appealable orders specified in section 246A(1)(q) of the Act.

5. Show Cause Notice Issued on a Public Holiday:
The assessee argued that the show cause notice requiring appearance on a public holiday rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.

6. Non-Adjudication of Specific Grounds by CIT(A), NFAC:
The CIT(A), NFAC, failed to adjudicate multiple grounds raised by the assessee related to various disallowances and expenses, including mine closure, OBR expenses, grants to schools, power and fuel expenses, environment and tree plantations, coal transportation, depreciation on railway siding, compensation to employees, TDS credit, amortization of leased land compensation, deferred grant, land crop compensation, guest house expenses, and depreciation on hospital building.

Additional Grounds:
The assessee raised additional grounds, asserting that the penalty order under section 270A was passed during the pendency of the appeal against the assessment order, violating section 275(1)(a), and that the penalty was levied without specifying circumstances under section 270A(9).

Judgment:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous. It was clarified that penalty imposed under section 270A falls within the orders appealable before the CIT(A) under section 246A. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication, directing him to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The other contentions regarding the sustainability of the penalty were left open for future consideration.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee company was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

---