RAKESH KUMAR TONGAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3953/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 March 2020AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without deciding the matter on merit, despite a previous ITAT direction to re-decide. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 16,56,719/-, with an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty of Rs. 4,14,100/- was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, and whether the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the Finance Act 2016 provisions regarding the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F + SMC’ NEW DELHI

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

Hearing: 27.01.2020Pronounced: 04.03.2020

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/03/2018 passed by CIT(A)-1, Noida for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in laws and facts of the case in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in laws and facts of the case in interpreting the provisions of Finance Act 2016 relating to Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT.”

3.

The assessee filed his return of income showing net income of Rs. 1, 56,719/- on 30/04/2009. The assessment was completed on total income of Rs. 16,56,719/- thereby making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the assessee could not explain the genuineness of the gift received by him, the penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) were initiated by issuing notice along with the assessment order. The penalty was imposed at Rs. 4,14,100/-.

3. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

During the hearing, none appeared for the assessee. Therefore, we have proceedings on the issue by taking cognizance of the documents filed before us.

5.

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

6.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not given any finding on its own to decide the matter on merit. The Tribunal in first round has specifically directed the CIT(A) to re-decide the appeal of the assessee considering the objections of the assessee. Since the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has not decided, the issue contested therein on merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04th March, 2020.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →