Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Ghaziabad dated 31.12.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), erred both on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 14,14,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition made by AO of Rs. 43,25,300/- on account of “unexplained investment in proty” which has been modified by CIT(A) – Noida to Rs. 1,90,18,000/- on account of “Long Term Capital Gain” on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has also been imposed.
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 14,14,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act being the very basis of imposing penalty on addition of Rs. 43,25,300/- held to be wrong by CIT(A), Noida.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case order passed u/s. 147/144 of the Act in which penalty proceedings initiated itself being bad in law and a nullity thereby confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)© by the Ld. CIT(A), is bad in law. 5. Without prejudice to the grounds of appeal
no. 1 to 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) AO erred in law in issuing show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act without specifying under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated i.e. either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, hence, the said notice is invalid and penalty order so passed is without jurisdiction and is bad in law, and is liable to be quashed.
That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal
2. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.
4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the authorities below. I am of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice I am setting aside the issues in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being herd to the assessee. 4.1 Keeping in view of the non-cooperation of the assessee, I am directing the assessee through his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.04.2020 at 10.00 am for hearing. There is no need to issue the notice by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee, since this order has already been pronounced in the open court.