TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Appeals Allowed for Reconsideration with Fair Process</h1> <h3>Magudapathy Pictures. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Investigation Circle I(1), Madurai.</h3> Magudapathy Pictures. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax, Investigation Circle I(1), Madurai. - ITD 099, 534, TTJ 100, 996, Issues Involved:1. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as 'not maintainable' due to non-payment of admitted tax.2. Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for concealment of income.3. Ex parte order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Appeal by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as 'Not Maintainable':The primary issue in I.T.A. No. 452/Mds./93 was the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the grounds that the admitted tax was not paid as per section 249(4)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner noted that the assessee had not paid the full amount of admitted tax before filing the appeal. The assessee argued that the provisions prior to the amendment effective from 1-4-1989 should apply since the relevant assessment year was 1986-87, and the appeal was filed on 8-5-1989. The Tribunal referenced case laws, including the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. Kerala Transport Co., to conclude that the pre-amended provisions of section 249(4) applied. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to verify if there were good and sufficient reasons for non-payment and to decide the issue on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.2. Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:In I.T.A. No. 303/Mds./2000, the issue pertained to the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. Given that the quantum appeal was set aside to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to determine its maintainability, the Tribunal decided that the penalty appeal should also be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was instructed to decide on the penalty after the quantum appeal was resolved, ensuring the assessee was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.3. Ex Parte Order by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):In I.T.A. No. 246/Mds./1993, the issue was the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without providing adequate opportunity to the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the appeal was posted multiple times in 1992, and despite the appellant's requests for adjournments, the Commissioner decided the appeal on merits without granting further adjournments. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been provided a proper opportunity of being heard and set aside the appeal to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to ensure reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee before deciding the issue on merits.Conclusion:All three appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to re-examine the issues, provide the assessee with reasonable opportunities for representation, and decide the matters on their merits.
TaxTMI 