MEDSAVE HEALTHCARE (TPA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2938/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 20204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the AO had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before imposing the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed this penalty to the CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was rightly imposed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whether the penalty order was passed mechanically without application of mind.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(k),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Sharma, (Employee)

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order (A) dated 25.03.2015 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO by rejecting the claim of the appellant that sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellant by the AO to represent its case which is against natural justice and thus the impugned order needs to be struck down. 2. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) / 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which Page 1 of 4

ITA No.- 2938/Del/2015. Medsave Healthcare (TPA) Ltd. is without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and in a mechanical manner and thus the impugned order needs to be struck down. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of the AO imposing penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) 274 and thus the impugned order needs to be set aside. 4. The assessee craves leave to add, amend and delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

(B) Vide Assessment Order dated 24.08.2012, the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) levied penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 272A(2)(k) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 25.03.2015, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 25.03.2015 of Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, both sides were in agreement that the AO had not provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee for imposing the aforesaid penalty. Both sides were in agreement that the issue in dispute in the present appeal may be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(B.1) In view of the foregoing, and as both sides are in agreement on this, we set aside the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 25.03.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the AO for fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

ITA No.- 2938/Del/2015. Medsave Healthcare (TPA) Ltd. (C) In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/20.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(k)

All 249 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(k) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →