NATIONAL FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-53(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2856/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 March 2020AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not obstruct the dispensation of justice and the CIT(A) should have considered the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) on the grounds of limitation. The assessee contended that technicalities should not impede justice and the appeal should have been decided on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation instead of deciding on merits. Whether the penalty proceedings should be decided after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

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 ‘SMC-2’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 17.03.2020Pronounced: 17.03.2020

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] - 18, New Delhi dated 30.12.2016 and 19.04.2017 respectively, pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

is against the quantum addition and is against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

3.

In the quantum appeal, the solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal is barred by limitation.

4.

I have carefully perused the order of the first appellate authority. In my considered opinion, technicality should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. The first appellate authority ought to have considered the delay, if any, in filing the appeal and should have decided the appeal on merits of the case.

5.

In the interest of justice and fair play, I deem it fit to restore the entire 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 affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

Since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), I further direct the ld. CIT(A) to decide the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.

2856 and 2857/DEL/2019 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2020.

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 →