LENZING POLYPACKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7853/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2019AY 2005-062 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the quantum appeal was still pending and the penalty order was passed ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2005-06. The penalty was based on additions made under Section 68. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the quantum appeal is pending and the CIT(A) order was ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 06.09.2018, passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. In various grounds of appeal, assesse has challenged the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) and also the penalty of Rs.3,17,256/- levied by the AO on account of addition of Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.17,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act.

2. Before us, Shri Ved Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assesse has submitted that quantum appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A) at present, and therefore, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271(1)(c) is unwarranted. Hence, the matter should be set aside and remanded back before the ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh after disposing of the quantum appeal.

3.

Ld. DR did not have any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT (A).

4.

In view of the fact that quantum appeal is still pending and impugned penalty order has been passed ex- parte by the ld. CIT (A), therefore, in the interest of justice, we are remanding back the issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to be decided afresh and in accordance with law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assesse.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th July, 2019.

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 →