OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6541/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 September 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the admission of the additional ground of appeal, recognizing its jurisdiction to examine questions of law arising from the facts. However, since the revenue had not yet adjudicated on this issue, the matter was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to raise an additional ground of appeal before the ITAT regarding the mechanical issuance of a penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued mechanically without application of mind, and if so, whether the consequent penalty order is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 274,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi

Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 14.08.2019Pronounced: 16.09.2019

In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 OCL India Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), 17th Floor, Narain Manzil, 26, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. (Respondent) PAN- AAACO1354J (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. R.M. Mehta, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi dated 24.10.2016.

2.

Before us, the assessee sought to raise and has filed petition for admission of additional grounds of appeal which are as under: “The A.O. having issued the Notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, the penalty order passed consequent thereto is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence liable to be quashed.”

6541/Del/2016 2

3.

By the power vested to this Tribunal as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case NTPC Vs CIT 229 ITR 383 regarding the jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the assessee, the additional ground is hereby allowed.

4.

From the record, we find that the Assessing Officer has satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income which is levying to tax.

5.

Since, the grounds have been raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal, the revenue hasn’t got the opportunity to adjudicate on this issue. Hence, the fitness of things, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) with directions to examine the issue on obtaining the penalty notice in original, keeping in view, the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. in WTA No. 12/Del/2011 dated 16.11.2017 and Sundram Finance Ltd. 403 ITR 407 and CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 and adjudicate the matter as deemed fit as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

6541/Del/2016 3

More judgments on Section 274

All 4,894 judgments and leading authorities on Section 274 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →