SHAHNAWAZ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-34(3), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and without adjudicating the issues on merit. Therefore, the appeals were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders concerning additions to income and penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) had passed the order without considering the merits of the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte orders without adjudicating the merits of the additions and penalty proceedings. Whether penalty proceedings were validly initiated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. C. N. PrasadDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-38, New Delhi dated 24.01.2019 and 22.03.2019.
2. In following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in assessing the income of Rs.1,78,966/- in hands of the assessee on account of GP ratio fall down in the year under consideration from the preceding year.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in assessing the income of Rs.47,03,460/- in hands of the assessee on account of amount credit in the saving account of the assessee during the year under consideration.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in assessing the income of & 1909/Del/2021 2 Shahnawaz Rs.56,54,340/- in hands of the assessee on account of cash deposit in the saving account of the assessee during the year under consideration.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) is bad in law keeping in view the grounds mentioned above.”
3. In , following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in initiation the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in impose the penalty without clear-cut finding of charge to impose the penalty.
Whether the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal?
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in impose the penalty without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.”
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The reasons submitted by the ld. AR for not appearing before the ld. CIT(A) have been considered.
5. The order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex-parte without going into the merits of the issue. Hence, the file is being & 1909/Del/2021 3 Shahnawaz remand to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessee. The revenue authorities would be at liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings as per the provisions of the Act in case of failure of the assessee to comply with the notices issued from time to time.
Owing to the above order, the order u/s 271(1)(c) be adjudicated taking into consideration the outcome of the de novo proceedings by the ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 16/03/2023.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
