SATISH KHANDELWAL,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6975/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 June 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities to the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear before the ITAT despite notice, leading to the appeal being heard ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was passed without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. D. R.;
Hearing: 21.06.2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 27.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

I.T.A.No.6975/Del/2019

2. In spite of issue and service of notice the assessee neither appeared nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR.

3. The assessee in his grounds of appeal has raised the following grounds:-

“1. That the penalty order deserves to be quashed since the same was passed and confirmed by both the lower authorities respectively without providing proper opportunity.

2.

That the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO is invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and therefore deserves to be quashed.

3.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order deserves to be quashed since the penalty notice issued by the Ld. AO was illegal and penalty levied on the basis of invalid notice deserves to be quashed.

4.

That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty amounting to Rs.5,99,785/- levied by the Ld. AO and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) is unjustified and deserves to be quashed on merits of the case.

5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing with the permission of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench. “

4. In the grounds of appeal the assessee challenged the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) in not providing adequate opportunity of being heard. It is noticed that the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) that the ld. CIT (Appeals) provided two opportunities to the assessee which the assessee failed to appear and, therefore, the ld. CIT (Appeals) disposed of the appeal ex-parte sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In our considered view the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have allowed further more opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. Therefore, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, this appeal is I.T.A.No.6975/Del/2019 restored to the file of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

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

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 →