FOX MANDAL & CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3304/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 November 2020AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The CIT(A) had previously decided the appeal ex-parte and sustained the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a law firm, filed its return of income which was revised. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the total income, including disallowances of various interest and bank charges. Subsequently, the AO levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable when the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. The primary issue is the procedural fairness and opportunity to be heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 19.11.2020Pronounced: 25.11.2020

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the exparte order dated 13.02.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 22,71,540/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 1

2.

The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Law Firm and derived income from business or profession. It filed its return of income on 30.9.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,28,720/- which was revised on 31.3.2012 at an income of Rs. 1,85,81,220/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 22.3.2014 determining the total income of Rs. 2,86,19,320/-, wherein apart from other additions, he made the following additions/disallowances:-

Particular Amount Bank charges 113399.37 Interest on (C/Card) 931587.70 Interest on Loan (Business) 1382417.82 Interest on Loan (Car) 1111736.40 Interest on Loan (Property) 2583087.00 Interest on O/D (HSBC) 637641.05 Interest on Service Tax 1625.00 Processing charges for Loan 389759.00 Grand Total 7351253.34

3.

Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs. 22,71,537/-. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite the issuance of statutory notices, Ld. CIT(A) vide exparte her order dated 13.02.2019, sustained the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case and therefore in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate its case.

5.

Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments advanced by the assessee’s counsel and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before her for which Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty so levied by the AO.

6.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to decide the appeal exparte and thereafter sustained the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to grant one final opportunity to the assesee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and substantiate its case, failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order, as per law. 3 We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.11.2020.

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 →