Income Tax

Income Tax Act is welfare not penal legislation. intention is to provide benefit of doubt to assessee

Income Tax Act is welfare not penal legislation. intention is to provide benefit of doubt to assessee in the given facts and circumstances

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3200 (2019) (12) ITAT

In the instant case, the appeal was preferred by the assessee against the order of the CIT(Appeals). The foremost grounds of the appeal was that the CIT(Appeals) had not granted fair opportunity of hearing and thereby violated the principle of natural justice.

In fact the CIT(Appeals) had given several opportunities of hearing to the assessee. However, the assessee had not attended even on a single date. Therefore the CIT(Appeals) proceeded to pass an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee argued that this non-attendance on those given dates was because of change of address of the assessee and it was not deliberate or intentional absence. He further prayed that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee, he can represent their case on merits before the CIT(Appeals).

On the contrary, the Revenue opposed to the prayer of the assessee stating that the assessee did not deserve any further opportunity since there had been non-attendance on several occasions.

Taking into totality of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal opined that since Income Tax Act is welfare legislation and the intention is to provide benefit of doubt to the assessee in the given facts and circumstances and on the contrary it is not penal legislation, therefore one final opportunity should be granted to the assessee to place his case on merits before the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal directed the assessee to be present immediately before the CIT(Appeals) along with all relevant documents to present their case on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to adjudicate the matter after complying with the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored back to his file.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

FAQs on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026

Frequently asked Questions on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026.  CBDT has released a FAQs on…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified. Rule come into force on the 16th day of August,…

3 days ago
  • GST

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act has to be communicated before arrest of person concerned– SC

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest of a person has to be communicated to him before arrest–…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Refund can not be denied on the ground that it was claimed in a return filed u/s 148 – ITAT

Refund can not be denied on the ground that it was claimed in a return filed u/s 148 where no…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Distinction between religious & charitable purposes is determined by institution’s primary or dominant object

The distinction between religious and charitable purposes is determined by institution's primary or dominant object and not merely by presence…

7 days ago
  • Income Tax

Fit case to issue notice u/s 148 – Relevancy of material & application of mind to objections important

For determination of what constitutes a fit case to issue notice u/s 148, rule of relevancy of the material and…

1 week ago