ATS MEADOWS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1854/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 August 2022AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after proper service of notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine for non-appearance. The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order upholding a penalty levied under Section 271C.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and whether proper notice was served on the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.08.2022Pronounced: 16.08.2022

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 30, New Delhi dated 30.04.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The grievances of the assessee read as under:

“1. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271C was incorrect, bad in law and void ab initio.

2. That the assessed income by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings is highly disputable and penalty levied on such amount is debatable as there is so much of doubt on the nature of present addition, also due to which the CBDT has issued clarification in relation to the same. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied without looking into the merits of the case.

3. That the payment by the appellant to the HUDA is not liable to TDS as the same was in the statutory payment under the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same.

4. That the Assessing Officer was wholly unjustified and grossly erred in framing the order u/s 271C of the Act without any specific show cause to the appellant company and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the same.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We decided to proceed ex-parte. The ld. DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

4.

We find that though the ld. CIT(A) has referred to five notices issued to the assessee, but none of the notices was attended which forced the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limine.

5.

In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits of the case and moreover, though the ld. CIT(A) has referred to the dates of issue of notices, but nowhere has mentioned that the notices were actually served upon the assessee at the given address.

6.

In the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on merits of the case after serving a proper notice and affording reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2022.

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →