Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
[A] These five appeals (ITA Nos.- 6225/Del/2016, 6226/Del/2016, 6227/Del/2016, 6228/Del/2016 and 6229/Del/2016) have been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 respectively. These appeals by Assessee are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity; and are hereby disposed off through this Consolidated Order. Grounds taken in these appeals
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. of Assessee are as under:
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 2,26,170/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 2,26,170/- u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
ITA No.- 6226/Del/2016
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 11,79,944/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 11,79,944/- u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
ITA No.- 6227/Del/2016
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 26,75,872/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 26,75,872/- u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. 3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
ITA No.- 6228/Del/2016
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 17,67,296/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 17,67,296/- u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
ITA No.- 6229/Del/2016
“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 17,67,296/- and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 17,67,296/- u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. [B] The relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned consolidated appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
“
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd.
”
ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. [C] These present appeals has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned consolidated appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, Revenue was represented by Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld. CIT(DR)”, for short].
However, none was present from the assessee’s side. A hearing was earlier fixed on 25.11.2019 also, and even on that date none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. CIT(DR); who relied upon the aforesaid impugned consolidated appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph [B] of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned consolidated appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. CIT(DR) and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned consolidated appellate order dated 19.09.2016 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
[D] Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in accordance with Proviso to ITA No.- 6225/Del/2016 and others. Excel Infotech Ltd. Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.
[E] In the result, appeals filed by Assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on