Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “F” : DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI R.K. PANDA
ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
Both the appeals by the assessee are directed against different Orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, Dated 28.02.2017 for the A.Y. 2005-2006 under section 263/143(3) and Dated 31.01.2017 for the A.Y. 2005-2006, challenging the levy of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2 ITA.Nos.1985 & 1986/Del./2017 Mrs. Pinky Bedi, Delhi. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties.
In the quantum appeal in ITA.No.1986/Del./ 2017, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.1,41,492/- The A.O. passed the assessment order under section 263/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 31.03.2014. The A.O. has mentioned in the Order that the proceedings are conducted in view of the Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT (Central), Gurgaon, Dated 28.03.2013. The A.O. after considering the submissions of the assessee did not accept the contention of assessee because of the detailed discussion made under section 263 of the I.T Act and made addition of Rs.1,41,492/-.
The Ld. CIT(A) after reproducing the submissions of the assessee simply agreed with the Order of the CIT, (Central), Gurgaon and appeal of assessee was dismissed.
After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. In this case, the assessment order have been 3 ITA.Nos.1985 & 1986/Del./2017 Mrs. Pinky Bedi, Delhi. passed in view of the Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The A.O. after recording statement of the assessee merely agreed with the Order of the CIT (Central), Gurgaon, under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Similar is the view of the Ld. CIT(A). No independent findings have been given on the submissions of the assessee. No reasons for decision have been mentioned in the impugned orders. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been violated and since no reasoned impugned orders have been passed, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the A.O. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned Orders of the authorities below and restore the matter in issue to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the assessment order in accordance with Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.O. shall pass reasoned Order as per Law. It may also be noted here that assessee during the course of proceedings has moved an application for admission of the additional ground contending that assessment order passed is barred by limitation. Since the entire assessment order is 4 ITA.Nos.1985 & 1986/Del./2017 Mrs. Pinky Bedi, Delhi. set aside to the file of A.O, therefore, this application has become infructuous. The assessee is at liberty to take appropriate steps before A.O. in accordance with law, if so advised.
In the result, ITA.No.1986/Del./2017 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA.No.1985/Del./2017 – A.Y. 2005-2006 :
The assessee challenged the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the same A.Y. 2005-2006.
Since quantum appeal is restored to the file of A.O, therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and penalty matter is also restored to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the penalty matter, after deciding the quantum appeal.
In the result, ITA.No.1985/Del./2017 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5 ITA.Nos.1985 & 1986/Del./2017 Mrs. Pinky Bedi, Delhi. 10. To sum-up, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.