SATISH KUMAR GAUTAM,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-3(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1150/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 July 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had sent notices to a wrong address and failed to provide reasons for the decision, violating principles of natural justice and Section 250(6). The order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability due to missing documents and unserved notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly dismissed the appeal for non-maintainability and whether the appellate order was passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 16.07.2019Pronounced: 16.07.2019

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1, Noida dated 31.08.2018 for AY 2014-15, challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee has challenged the levy of penalty, however, copy of the demand notice and 2 ITA.No.1150/Del./2019 challan of fees deposited for admission of appeal is not available on record. Initially notice of hearing was served upon assessee on which, Counsel of assessee took adjournment. Thereafter, all the notices were sent to the assessee at Shop No. 11, Block J, Sector 12, Noida which returned un-served. The Ld. CIT(A) in view of the above, found that appeal of assessee is not maintainable, same is accordingly dismissed.

3.

I have heard Ld. DR and perused the impugned order.

The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned in the impugned order that notices have been sent to assessee at Shop No. 11, Block-J Market, Sector-12, Noida. However, the AO in the assessment order has mentioned the address of assessee as “Shop No. 11, Block-Z Market, Sector-12, Noida” which address is also mentioned on the top of the appellate order. It, therefore, appears that notices have been sent by the Ld. CIT(A) at wrong address. No reasons for decision have also been mentioned in the appellate order. Thus, appellate order is volatile principle

3 ITA.No.1150/Del./2019 of nature justice. According to section 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order, even if, assessee did not appear before him to prosecute the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, passed this order in violation of section 250(6) of the Act. The order of Ld. CIT(A), thus, cannot be sustained in law.

4.

I, accordingly, set aside the appellate order and restore the appeal of assessee to the file of CIT(A) with direction to re- decide the appeal of assessee strictly on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) shall give reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →