OM PRAKASH BANSAL & SONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1256/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 November 2019AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a reasonable opportunity to present their case was not granted. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee had suo motu offered income during assessment proceedings after a survey. The assessee claimed a lack of proper opportunity to present their case.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified and whether the assessee was afforded a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 133A,Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2014-15 on the following grounds:-

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 271 (1)( c) of the Act and upheld by the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority is grossly arbitrary, void and bad at law as the appellant suo moto offered the income of Rs. 5,25,000/- during the assessment proceedings to meet out the level of income over and above that amount of surrendered at the time of survey uls 133A of the Income Tax Act,1961

2. The allegation of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was upheld by the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority are grossly arbitrary, baseless and bad at law as there was no concealment of any material facts by the appellant in its return of income Filed uls 139 of the Income Tax Act and there was no reason for the appellant to conceal its income. Hence, the appellant can never be said to have attracted the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO imposing the penalty uls 271 (l)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,62,225/- which is highly injudicious, unwarranted; against the facts of the case and bad at law as there was no finding against the appellant during the assessment proceedings.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Hon'ble. First Appellate Authority are against the principle of natural justice and without giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the appellant to present its case.

5. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal.

Tax Effect relating to all the above mentioned grounds of appeal is Rs. 1,62,225/-.

2.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

3.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have the Ld. DR and perused the records available with me especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find considerable cogency in the contention raised in the grounds of appeal that a reasonable and sufficient opportunity was not granted to the assessee to present its case. Keeping in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after considering all the evidences/documents and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the necessary documentary evidences before him.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →