COMMITTED TRADING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 367/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, which were purely legal and did not require fresh facts. These grounds were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also sought to raise additional grounds of appeal related to the jurisdiction and validity of the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was valid and whether the AO had specified the exact limb of the section under which the penalty was imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Adv. & Ms. Shaily

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 21.10.2015 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised in the assessee’s appeal read as under:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT ( A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of 47,43,320/- u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income tax Act,1961 merely on the basis of presumptions and suspicions,

ignoring the various judicial pronouncements and material on record.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT ( A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of 47,43,320/- u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income tax Act,1961on the ground that no convincing/satisfactory explanation has been filed by the assessee and that the assessee has failed to prove that there was no fraud or neglect in filing the return.

That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

3. Assessee has also filed separate Application for admission of additional grounds in Appeal in which the assessee has stated that in view of the settled decision in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC), (legal ground can be raised for first time in collateral and second round also). He further stated that since the issue is purely legal based on facts already on record, the assessee may be allowed to raise the following additional ground in the interest of natural justice:-

“3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned penalty of Rs. 47,43,320/- levied under section 271(1)© of the Act is without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law.

3.1 That the AO erred on facts and in law in not specifying whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and interchangeably applying the two concepts while imposing penalty under section 271(1)© of the Act.”

3.1 Ld. Counsel of the Assessee requested that keeping in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383 (SC) (Supra), the additional grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals may be admitted and decided first.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR strongly opposed the admission of additional grounds (legal) raised by the assessee.

5.

After hearing both the parties as well as perusing the additional grounds alongwith the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, we are of the considered view that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of NTPC Limited 229 ITR 383 (Supra), the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal ground and did not require fresh facts which is to be investigated and goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice, we admit the aforesaid additional grounds. We find that since these additional ground were not raised before the Ld. CIT(A), hence, the same requires adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit back the aforesaid additional grounds to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 10/05/2019.

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 →