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 >>

• ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees
• PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
• Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
• When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
• EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC