MAYA DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-16, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7697/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2023AY 2014-152 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not strictly followed and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order imposing a penalty. The assessee raised grounds related to violation of natural justice, lack of opportunity to be heard, and non-consideration of judgments.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271D was imposed in violation of natural justice and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271D,Section 269SS

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 06.12.2022Pronounced: 05.01.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 16.07.2019.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is illegal being against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is erred in imposing a penalty of Rs.14,50,000/- under section 271D by invoking section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving any proper opportunity of being heard.

3. The ld. CIT(A) is erred in imposing a penalty of Rs.14,50,000/- under section 271D by invoking Section 2 Maya Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the various judgments quoted by the appellant.”

3.

The adjournment application has been rejected.

4.

We have gone through the grounds taken up by the assessee. At ground No. 1, the assessee pleaded that the principals of natural justice have not been strictly followed. At ground No. 2, the assessee pleaded that the order has been passed without giving any proper opportunity of being heard and at ground No.3, the assessee pleaded that the judgments quoted have not been considered. Hence, as not prejudice would be caused to any of the parties and in the interest of justice, the matter is being remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating de novo.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/01/2023.

More judgments on Section 271D

All 1,725 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →