FRUTO FREESH INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-9, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) on a specific date to present their case.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The assessee claims they did not receive the notices for the hearing. The original penalty was levied under Section 271D for alleged violation of Section 269SS.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard, and whether the penalty under Section 271D was time-barred.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA
(A) This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 03.07.2019 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-party order without providing an opportunity of being heard.
ITA No.-7279/Del/2019. Fruto Freesh Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-order without appreciating the fact that no notice of hearing was received by the appellant and hence the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is without jurisdiction and illegal and need to be quashed.
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted of the provisions of the Section 269SS of the Act stating that the appellant has received unsecured loans of Rs. 1,83,50,000/- by mode of payment other than that specified on the said section.
2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred by not following the jurisdictional High Court decision which was decided in favour of the appellant.
2.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly neglect the fact that the order of penalty u/s 271D was passed after expiry of time limit of imposition of penalty in terms of provision of sec 275(1)(c).
That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated here in above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
(B) Vide order dated 31.07.2017; Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (“Ld. Addl. CIT”, for short) levied penalty of Rs. 1,83,50,000/- under Section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“I.T. Act”, for short) for alleged violation of Section 269SS of I.T. Act in respect of transactions with M/s Divyarth Leasing and Finance Private Limited. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 03.07.2019, Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order dismissing assessee’s appeal as the assessee did not respond to notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). This present appeal has been filed by assessee against order of Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing Ld. Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) of the assessee submitted that the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee. He submitted that the disputed issue in this present appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for ITA No.-7279/Del/2019. Fruto Freesh Industries Pvt. Ltd. fresh order, so that the assessee has an opportunity to present its case before Ld.
CIT(A). The Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”, for short) for Revenue was in agreement with these submissions of the Ld. AR of assessee. Ld. AR of the assessee also gave an assurance that unnecessary and avoidable adjournment will not be sought by the assessee.
(C) After hearing both sides, and as both sides agree to this; we restore the disputed issues in this present appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order in accordance with law, after providing opportunity to the assessee. We direct the assessee to present its Authorized Representative before Ld. CIT(A) on 25.02.2020 from 10 A.M. onwards (which was stated by Ld. AR of assessee to be convenient.)
(D) In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10/02/2020.
More judgments on Section 271D
- Sujatha Vaddanapu, Nalgonda vs ITO, Ward-1, NalgondaITA 2048/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Inder Lal Ramrakhyani, Dhamtari vs ITO, DhamtariITA 694/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Harshit Singhania Buildcon, RaipurITA 560/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shree Jalaram Finance, Borsad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(4), PetladITA 1785/AHD/2026[2000-01]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2000-01
- Veera Mani Kumari Vattikooti, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward -11(1), HyderabadITA 1218/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026