OMVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8109/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 December 2021AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not prevent justice and restored the appeals to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeals on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against the CIT(A)'s orders confirming additions made by the AO and a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals due to delay without adjudicating on the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals on grounds of limitation without considering the merits of the case, and the consequential issue of penalty.

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 ‘D’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.12.2021Pronounced: 08.12.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 8108/DEL/2018
ITA No. 8109/DEL/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad dated 28.09.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10.

Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and relates to the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'] by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of service of notice.

4.

We have heard the ld. DR at length and have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We find that the assessment has been framed as per AIR information received by the Assessing Officer relating to sale of agricultural land.

Assessment was completed vide order dated 18.10.2016 by making addition of long term capital gain of Rs. 53,92,700/-.

6.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but the same was barred by limitation as the delay was of 8 months. We find that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

7.

We are of the considered view that technicalities should not come in the way of imparting justice. We, therefore, restore the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

8.

In so far as the appeal relating to levy of penalty is concerned, we find that there was delay of two months in filing the appeal and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

9.

Since we have set aside the quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A), we direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the quantum appeal and after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in and 8109/DEL/2018 are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2021.

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 →