CHHAGAMMAL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3059/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2022AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity before passing an order.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file their Income Tax return for AY 2008-09 and also did not provide a required audit report. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty for violating Section 44AB. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments before the CIT(A) without making compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and if the penalty proceedings were validly conducted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 144,Section 148,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. A.D. JainDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 10.05.2022Pronounced: 27.06.2022

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

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, dated 30.01.2019 relating to AY 2008-09.

2.

None present on behalf of the assessee.

3.

The assessee is an individual. In the case of the assessee assessment was completed u/s 144/148 was completed on 23.03.2016 at an income of Rs. 45,36,280/-, The appellant has not filed his return of Income for AY 2008-09. Penalty proceedings u/s 27IB of the IT Act was initiated in the case of the appellant. The appellant was having the trading receipts above the amount for which books of account required to be audited. As appellant failed to provide audit report in respect of the account so maintained if any as mandated by the provision of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, AO hold appellant in default for violating the provision of section 44AB and levied penalty at Rs. 1,00,000/- vide order dated 30.09.2016. Against the order, appellant has filed the appeal. The case was fixed up for hearing by CIT(A)- 14 on 03.08.2018 but no compliance was made by the appellant and made request for adjournment. The case was adjourned for 07.09.2018. Again appellant has sought adjournment and the case was adjourned for 11.10.2018. Appellant has again sought adjournment and case was adjourned for 13.11.2018. The case was received on transfer to the incumbent Ld.CIT (A) who issued notice on 21.12.2018 for fixing the hearing on 07.01.2019. Again appellant sought adjournment and case adjourned for 29,01.2019 but no compliance was made the appellant on 29.01.2019 also.

4.

The Department represented by Mr. Vinay Kumar who sought adjournment on behalf of the Sr. DR which is rejected.

5.

On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee could not get opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the appeal is being sent back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to serve the notice on the assessee afford an opportunity of being heard and then pass the order. In case, the assessee fails to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) or comply with the notices issued, necessary provisions of section of Income Tax may be invoked against the assessee as deemed fit.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/06/2022.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →