YANSH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 44(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7077/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a categorical finding on the merits of the case and had passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended that they were not given an adequate opportunity of hearing before the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was validly levied and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(Appeals).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDAMS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Chourasia, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.11.2020Pronounced: 25.11.2020

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by CIT (Appeals)-15, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“ 1. That the order dated 26-06-2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.21,78,999/- for alleged concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

2.

That the order dated 26-06-2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 21,78,999/- without clearly specifying the limb of section 271 (1)(c) of the Act under which penalty proceedings had been initiated. “

3.

The Assessment was completed on 14.03.2014 at an income of Rs. 68,41,372/- including Rs. 68,41,000/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain. The penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was passed on 28.02.2017 thereby imposing penalty of Rs. 21,78,999/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not given the appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to represent his case.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A) and the order is passed ex-parte. From the perusal of the order of the CIT(A), it can be seen that the CIT(A) has not given any categorical finding on merit of the case. Therefore, it will be appropriate to give the opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the CIT(A). Hence, we are remanding back the entire issue to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. We further direct the assessee to co-operate the revenue authorities for just and proper disposal by remaining present on the hearing dates and submit the relevant documents, otherwise, the revenue is at liberty to dismiss the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on merit. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 25th Day of November, 2020

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 →