AMIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1563/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to sympathetically consider the delay and decide the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal after giving the assessee adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed as barred by limitation due to the assessee's illness. The assessee sought restoration of the appeals to present their case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals dismissed for delay should be restored to allow the assessee to present their case on merits, and whether the penalty appeal should be decided after the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 09/02/2023Pronounced: 09/02/2023

is the appeal by the assessee preferred against the order of the CIT(A)–42, New Delhi dated 27.04.2022 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17.

2.

With this appeal the assessee has challenged the correctness of the assessment order dated 09.12.2018 framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act.

3.

CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated 20.06.2022 pertaining to A.Y.2016-17 and with this appeal the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order dated 08.06.2019 by which the AO levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

4.

At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee stated that the appeal before the first appellate authority could not be attended because of illness of the assessee because of which the appeal before the CIT(A) was also filed belatedly.

5.

It is the say of the Counsel that before the CIT(A) the assessee could not present the cause for the delay in filing the appeal and the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Counsel pleaded for the restoration of appeal so that the assessee can defend his case. Though the DR strongly objected to this by stating that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case by the lower authorities, therefore, no second innings need to be given.

6.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee has not furnished the relevant documentary evidences in support of his claim of treaty benefit. The appeal before the CIT(A) was filed belatedly and the proceedings were not attended properly.

7.

We are of the considered view that technicalities should not come in the way in parting justice, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we deem it fit to restore both the appeals to the files of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the cause of delay in filing the appeal sympathetically and decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(A) is further directed to decide the issue relating to the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal.

8.

In the result, both the appeal are treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 9. Decision announced in the open court on 09.02.2023.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →