Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.