RATHI STEEL & POWER LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE - 78, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Rathi Steel & Power Ltd., Vs. ACIT 1010/121, 3rd Floor, Range – 78 Chauhan Market, New Delhi Madanpur Khadar, Pocket-D & E, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi – 110044 PAN No. AAACR 1435 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms. Supriya Mehta, C.A. Revenue by Shri M. Baranwal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 01.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04.08.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law having been passing the order without giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in laws in confirming the penalty ofRs.11,84,599/-levied by JCIT under section 272A(2)(g) of the Act.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty rejecting the contention of the assessee that delay in issuance of TDS certificate was on account of a reasonable causein terms of provision of Section 273B, as such the penalty is not leviable.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by JCIT ignoring the fact that there is no loss of revenue on account delay in issuance of TDS certificate as assessee had deducted TDS and deposited the same to the Government account as per law.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by JCIT despite that same has been levied without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard under section 272A(4) in violation of principle of natural justice.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming penalty despite the fact that there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee for the delay in issuing of TDS certificates.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal

5. Before us, Learned AR at the outset, stated that before CIT(A) adjournment was sought on account of ill health of wife of AR but CIT(A) did not grant the adjournment and has dismissed the appeal and while dismissing the appeal he has not decided the issue on merits. She stated that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to plead its case and she undertakes that the assessee would be represented before the authorities and all the required details called for by authorities will be furnished.